Constitutional Interpretations - Essay Example

Constitutional Interpretations Constitutional interpretation is the process of assigning meaning to the terms in constitution to justify the implications of the specific decisions. ‘Constitutional interpretation is the process we use to give concrete expression to the ideals and values contained in the Constitution.’1 ‘The proper role of the Supreme Court, it is said, is to, “interpret” the constitution, not rewrite it.’2 According to U.S. Constitution Online, constitution is a brief document and can not be described in detail. There can be its many meaning to different people, even if it is clearly stated it can be interpreted as giving different and conflicting rights and areas of implication. It comes under the government framework that it vividly narrates and defines the right meaning. When conflicts and disputes grow then the constitution is consulted and the need of interpretation rise.3Defining and interpreting constitution is not very easy because according to the definition it can not define the act of interpreting itself. In this scenario; It suggests if it does not say, that constitutional interpretation is a routine, mechanical matter…constitutional interpretation involves an element of doubt and indecision…Sometimes it is so hopelessly and wonderfully vague that it appears to say nothing at all­­­­-or perhaps worse too much…we have some understanding of polity the constitution seeks to invent…Constitutional interpretation, in the larger sense, is an ongoing act of self-definition.4 According to U.S. Constitution online, there are four basic methods of constitutional interpretation; Originalism or original intent, Modernism or Instrumentalism, Literalism (historical and contemporary) and Democratic or normative reinforcement. Originalism, “The theory that in constitutional adjudication judges should be bound by the intent of the farmers,” where “Farmer” refers to those who wrote and ratified the Constitution, is a regulative theory of constitutional interpretation whose purpose is to provide this guarantee and prevent constitutional interpretation from becoming political in the policy making sense of the term.5 They consider it the original way of interpretation and look for guidance from makers if there is some ambiguity. According to this method constitution is interpreted in a traditional way of farmers. In this method it is determined that how farmer had thought and interpreted. For knowing the farmer’s way, different sources are used, for example, newspapers, Federalist papers, articles, contemporary writings of the farmers and Constitution as well.6This interpretation of approach is limited because only a few hundred people of same kind can not be the representatives of the diverse population of today. Modernism is exactly opposite to the originalism as they perceive original text to be old and not in consideration with today’s world and its requirements. They believe in changing and improving constitution with time as modern development and scenarios can change the whole meaning and it may not give any explanation about it. ‘Modernists do not reject originalism-they recognize that there is a value in a historical perspective; but the contemporary needs of society outweigh an adherence to a potentially dangerously outdated angle of attack.’7 Textualism on the other hand put emphasis on the importance of written word that interpretation should begin with the written word itself. Some times due to the brief nature of constitution words written in it are not as clear as they should be, but textualism advocates that the ordinary words should be taken in their very clear meaning and then apply them in ordinary sense.8This approach is very limited in the sense that text can have several meanings; no body can understand and apply an unclear or some confused thought in order to take a decision. It is not practical and has other implication. So, it also calls for interpretation of the text because of the possible conflicting meanings and interpretations. Doctrinalism, much of contemporary law consists of ‘doctrines,’ or verbal formulas, that the court used to decide specific cases. When the court is examining state legislation that touches a ‘fundamental right’ for example, it applies the ‘compelling state interest’ doctrine. It provides simply that the state must have a ‘compelling’ interest to regulate the fundamental right…The court implies another doctrine-or test: such a right is one ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’ 9 Prudentialists’ key word is “properly”. They insist that it is appropriate that judges should account for prudential considerations in coming to a decision. Bickel’s argument has recently been refined and elaborated by Cass Sunstein, who argues strongly for “judicial minimalism.” Believing that the work of the courts should not undermine the polity’s commitment to democratic deliberation, Sunstein recommends that judges avoid two temptations: setting broad rules for the future and providing ambitious theoretical justification for judicial outcomes…additionally the minimalist ruling is less likely to produce the unintended and unwanted consequences that can easily result from the efforts of judges who often lack relevant information about the issues that come before them for adjudication.10 Literalists (historical) believe in taking guidance from constitutional words only for the context of 18th centaury while contemporary literalists see the words but not in the context of history. They believe in consulting modern source of knowledge and don’t depend just on the definitions.11 Democratic or normative reinforcement suggests that Constitution is not designed to be a set of specific principles and guidelines, but that it was designed to be a general principle, a basic skeleton on which contemporary vision would build upon…Constitution must look at the general feeling evoked by the Constitution, then use modern realism to pad out the skeleton.12 American constitution has one basic principle which is the separation of powers, according to Richard Neustadt ‘it is the existence of separate institutions which are sharing powers’ Though, it is not clearly states in constitution but it is obvious meaning which is after complete examination of constitution only then the individual provision should be distinguished. It tells that we should see and understand the constitution in its contextual references not in its actual meaning word by word. It is important to see provision as a part of the whole but in some cases like constitutional liberties it is not very much useful to give structural argument.13 There are philosophical and aspirational arguments as well which explains; There are fundamental principles that inform our polity-including principles of self government, of respect of liberty and the need for limited but energetic government have their source and much of their meaning in philosophical assumptions about human nature…in fact, whether any kind of constitutional interpretation is really possible without making references-either knowingly or unknowingly –to such things.14 I think founders would have preferred the intended meaning themselves rather than literal meanings. They were epitome of wisdom and learning, how they can neglected the changing world and its requirements? Founders can never neglect the context of the things under consideration which can lead to disastrous situations. They would have used normative reinforcement for interpretation which would have helped them to stick to the basic and values of the Constitutional text and they can build new and improved laws on the basic ones. I personally feel that it is not sensible to go for the word by word meaning of the constitutional text written at the time of drafting. It can bind the judgments to only specific situations and can cause misunderstanding and wrong judgments without interpretation. I found the normative reinforcement as the best of all interpretation methods. For evidence; Democrats point out that many phrases, such as “due process” and “equal protection” are deliberately vague, that the phrases are not defined in context. The guidance for interpretation must come from that basic framework that the farmers provided, but that to fill in the gaps, modern society and current morals and feelings must be taken into consideration…ensuring that the farmers still have a say in the underlying decision or ruling, this interpretation is seen to enhance democratic ideals and the notion of republicanism.15 I think no method is sufficient enough in isolation. In order to get the most out of constitution guidance we need to focus on working in combination of methods depending on the requirements. No doubt there is a great amount of guidance and wisdom in written word which can be revealed by understanding the real intent of the text. However, ‘it is important to recognize a distinction between seeking guidance and being bound, by definition, to follow their intentions.’16 Work Cited Goldford J. Dennis, “The Political Character of Constitutional Interpretation.” Palgrave Macmillan Journals, 32, no. 2(winter, 1990), http://0-www.jstor.org.opac.sfsu.edu/action/showArticle?suffix=3235074&seq=13&Search=yes&term=methods&term=constitutional&term=interpretation&list=show&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dmethods%2Bof%2Bconstitutional%2Binterpretation%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26wc%3Don&item=4&ttl=32815&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=null (Accessed May 20, 2009). Kommers, P. Donald, John E.Finn, and Gray J.Jacobsohn, American constitutional law: essays, cases, and comparative notes, USA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. Shaman, M. Jeffrey, Constitutional interpretation: illusion and reality, United States: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001. U.S. Constitution Online, “Constitutional Topic: Constitutional Interpretation,” US constitution.net, http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html, Assessed 21 May 2009. Read More