Welcome to our official American Government blogging site. Our goal is to have thought provoking discussions about the influence our government has on issues that will affect our lives. I hope to develop your critical thinking and problem solving skills and encourage you to become aware of the world you live in.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
A Living Document
How should the Constitution be interpreted? Should it based on the intent of the Framers, on the literal meaning of the words, or based on modern interpretation?
I think the constitution should be bassed on the literal meaning of the words because if we go off of modern interprtation people will do what they want cause poeple have different opinions!
put the laws in this day and age... man has become more aware of getting around laws that can so easily be bent... i think its modern interpretation... it tells us what the laws are, but we have a group of people to determine what they are asking for...
"Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical." ~ Blaise Pascal
I think the Constitution should be based on modern interpretation. Things have changed since it was written, and some things don't apply to us in this day in age. Its like how the 20th ammendment changes the day the President takes office. That changed because of technology...in 20 years that ammendment could change as well.
I know I'm supposed to take a side here, but it needs to be a balance of all three things. The intent of the framers was on principles that could be applied any time. The literal meaning is important because they chose those words for a reason. Modern interpretation is also essential, because like everyone else said, things change and we need to be flexible if we want people follow the rules.
well my opinion on the constitution is that it should be bassed on mostly the words because i think if we bassed it off the other term america wouldn't have become what it is today.
I hate to ride the fence here, but, A balance of all three has to be applied for a successful interpretation to be gained. First of all, do we know for sure the real intent of the framers? Are the literal words really necessary? and is a modern interpretation the best approach? To make everything work, balance of power is always key. I am sure the framers would say the exact same thing, as they intended it to be a living document.
I think the constitution should be bassed on the literal meaning. It was made like this ... and the founding father made it to get America better. Of course some of the thing in there are old and can't be used in the modern society but that doesn't mean the constitution isn't what it was made for.
I think that the constitution should be a living document because when the framers wrote it, they had their aims in mind and made it purposefully vague to accommodate changing needs of the nation. That is also why amendments were included in the constitution's outline. The basic principals and values of the constitution should be concrete enough to keep the people in power from twisting it too much in their favor.
the Constitution be interpreted with the litural meaning of the words, but it should also could be changed so it can be made to fit the mordern sociaty.
I too think that there needs to be a balance of all 3 things, but if I had to pick one, I would base it upon modern interpretation. We may never know the EXACT trend of thought of the framers, so we must do our best to interpret its meanings.
Modern interpreptation because a lot of things have changed but you have to still consider the values of the framers because that was what the nation was made from.
Where do we get the assumption that the founders had a literal or specific intent in the first place? If the founders didn't intend for us to interpret then why would there even be a need for a judicial branch?? The constitution has a lot of room for interpretation because that's how the founding fathers intended it. They knew when they wrote it that things wouldn't always stay the same. For the constitution to be a living document, and remain that way for a long time, they had to leave room for interpretation.
I think it should be based upon all three. The intent of the Framers has to be taken into consideration because they meant for the Constitution to be a certain way. Also, they used specific words to try and represent what they meant. It also has to be based on modern interpretation because times have changed so our interpretation of it changes also.
i believe all law should be left to how the judicial court decides to interpret it upon their understandings and the understandings of the higher court
The constitution should be interperted the way the framers intented it to be. The framers had a plan when they were writing it so it should be carryed out with their ideas
I think it should be based on the original meaning because they lived easier and there was not so much crime and the government was not broke and went to was every other year so like the intent of the Framers. WAD UP WITMAN!!!!!
I think the constitution should be based on modern interpretation because we know what the laws are and everything and if it's literal then some people may not like it that way.
it should be based on all three you cannot just delete what is said or it isnt he original words anymore and thats the basis of the constitution two literal meanings are sometimes the only meaning that can be used for the words three modern interpretation are present in all points of life even if its the constitution we put ourselves into every thing we do
It should be interpreted on the framers intent: they knew things were going to change because they left room for amendments, also the whole purpose of our government is to have checks and balances. Doesn't that also go along with the Constitution? A balance of all three is the best option.
I think it should be some of both. On one hand we should have our country be like the fathers intended. But some things have changed immenser and should be reconsidered of how things are today
I think it's a little of all three, but mostly we should base it on what the Framers had in mind because they obviously knew what they were talking about. Once we understand and respect what the Framers meant, then I think we can use our brains and apply it to how things are today. Obviously some things aren't applicable like the stuff about slavery and whatnot, but the Framers weren't stupid--they had to be pretty darn smart to found this nation, so we should just trust them because if it worked back then, it Should work today.
It should be the framers intent because even though a lot of things have changed to this modern day, the principles of what they intended on always should stay the same.
I believe it should be seen as in the literal meanings of the words aswell as the modern interpretation. Words within the constitution were placed in it for a reason but also many things within it were relevant for the time it was written but do not apply in today's world.
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. That is all.
I think i will take the fence on this decision as well. We should take the literal meaning on some of it but the world has changed so some of it we need to change into modern times.
I believe the meaning of the Constitution when it was first thought of and drafted should never be forgotten because it is a great part in how we've gotten to be where we are. The intent of the Framers also should not leave our minds because it as well was a large part in how the Constitution came to be. However, I do believe that after all of these years the Constitution should be interpreted by the literal meaning as well as the modern interpretation. There must be a compromise in meanings because though we live by different rules and meanings in modern day society, many of the old interpretations are still in great use today. People try to walk around the laws enforced by the Constitution by finding different meanings and in that case there should be a more up to date interpretation but at the same time the literal meaning is still very important in how we live and how our government operates. - Ashlee R.
The Framers studied the history of past societies and governments. The principles that they based the Constitution on are timeless and apply to the past, present, and future. So the Constitution has no need to be modernized or updated unless carefully through the amendment process.
I would also have to agree that a balance of all three would be best. The Framers figured out what was best to get everything started, as well as continue, but over time things can change.
The constitution should be interpreted based upon modern interpretation. Simply because no one knows exactly what the intent of the framers was and doing it by literal meaning will only cause people to go in circles based off of how they interpret that "literal" meaning.
I think the constitution should be based on the best decisions for the country and the people because it just put us so far in dept it is not worth not changing it.
43 comments:
I think the constitution should be bassed on the literal meaning of the words because if we go off of modern interprtation people will do what they want cause poeple have different opinions!
put the laws in this day and age... man has become more aware of getting around laws that can so easily be bent... i think its modern interpretation... it tells us what the laws are, but we have a group of people to determine what they are asking for...
"Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical." ~ Blaise Pascal
I think the Constitution should be based on modern interpretation. Things have changed since it was written, and some things don't apply to us in this day in age. Its like how the 20th ammendment changes the day the President takes office. That changed because of technology...in 20 years that ammendment could change as well.
I know I'm supposed to take a side here, but it needs to be a balance of all three things. The intent of the framers was on principles that could be applied any time. The literal meaning is important because they chose those words for a reason. Modern interpretation is also essential, because like everyone else said, things change and we need to be flexible if we want people follow the rules.
well my opinion on the constitution is that it should be bassed on mostly the words because i think if we bassed it off the other term america wouldn't have become what it is today.
I hate to ride the fence here, but, A balance of all three has to be applied for a successful interpretation to be gained. First of all, do we know for sure the real intent of the framers? Are the literal words really necessary? and is a modern interpretation the best approach? To make everything work, balance of power is always key. I am sure the framers would say the exact same thing, as they intended it to be a living document.
I think the constitution should be bassed on the literal meaning. It was made like this ... and the founding father made it to get America better. Of course some of the thing in there are old and can't be used in the modern society but that doesn't mean the constitution isn't what it was made for.
I think that the constitution should be a living document because when the framers wrote it, they had their aims in mind and made it purposefully vague to accommodate changing needs of the nation. That is also why amendments were included in the constitution's outline. The basic principals and values of the constitution should be concrete enough to keep the people in power from twisting it too much in their favor.
the Constitution be interpreted with the litural meaning of the words, but it should also could be changed so it can be made to fit the mordern sociaty.
I too think that there needs to be a balance of all 3 things, but if I had to pick one, I would base it upon modern interpretation. We may never know the EXACT trend of thought of the framers, so we must do our best to interpret its meanings.
i dont think that we should change anything. Because right now i think the government is doing okay.
i think that the constitution should be interpreted based on what the framers meant by it because that is what they intended it to mean
Modern interpreptation because a lot of things have changed but you have to still consider the values of the framers because that was what the nation was made from.
Where do we get the assumption that the founders had a literal or specific intent in the first place? If the founders didn't intend for us to interpret then why would there even be a need for a judicial branch?? The constitution has a lot of room for interpretation because that's how the founding fathers intended it. They knew when they wrote it that things wouldn't always stay the same. For the constitution to be a living document, and remain that way for a long time, they had to leave room for interpretation.
I think it should be based upon all three. The intent of the Framers has to be taken into consideration because they meant for the Constitution to be a certain way. Also, they used specific words to try and represent what they meant. It also has to be based on modern interpretation because times have changed so our interpretation of it changes also.
i believe all law should be left to how the judicial court decides to interpret it upon their understandings and the understandings of the higher court
I think the constitution should be interpreted based on what the framers meant by it. That's pretty much what they intended it to mean. For real.
it should be interpreted through all three ways.
I think the Constitution should be based on modern ways. So many things have changed since then. So some things may not fit to how we are today.
The constitution should be interperted the way the framers intented it to be. The framers had a plan when they were writing it so it should be carryed out with their ideas
The Constitution should be interpreted in the way the Framers wrote it. They wrote it the way they did for a reason.
I think it should be based on the original meaning because they lived easier and there was not so much crime and the government was not broke and went to was every other year so like the intent of the Framers. WAD UP WITMAN!!!!!
I think it should be based on the literal meaning. If we go off of what people think, nothing good is going to come out of it.
I think the constitution should be based on modern interpretation because we know what the laws are and everything and if it's literal then some people may not like it that way.
it should be based on all three you cannot just delete what is said or it isnt he original words anymore and thats the basis of the constitution two literal meanings are sometimes the only meaning that can be used for the words three modern interpretation are present in all points of life even if its the constitution we put ourselves into every thing we do
It should be interpreted on the framers intent: they knew things were going to change because they left room for amendments, also the whole purpose of our government is to have checks and balances. Doesn't that also go along with the Constitution? A balance of all three is the best option.
I think it should be some of both. On one hand we should have our country be like the fathers intended. But some things have changed immenser and should be reconsidered of how things are today
I think the constitution should be based on literal meaning. Modern interpretation and people have many different opinions.
I think it's a little of all three, but mostly we should base it on what the Framers had in mind because they obviously knew what they were talking about. Once we understand and respect what the Framers meant, then I think we can use our brains and apply it to how things are today. Obviously some things aren't applicable like the stuff about slavery and whatnot, but the Framers weren't stupid--they had to be pretty darn smart to found this nation, so we should just trust them because if it worked back then, it Should work today.
I think literal meaning that way people can view it in their own way and not someone elses words.
Although things have changed and our society is different, we should keep it as close to the framers intentions as possible.
It should be based on the framers intent. If they base it on modern interpretation, then people can interpret any way they want to.
It should be the framers intent because even though a lot of things have changed to this modern day, the principles of what they intended on always should stay the same.
I believe it should be seen as in the literal meanings of the words aswell as the modern interpretation. Words within the constitution were placed in it for a reason but also many things within it were relevant for the time it was written but do not apply in today's world.
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. That is all.
I think i will take the fence on this decision as well. We should take the literal meaning on some of it but the world has changed so some of it we need to change into modern times.
i think it should be based on what is the most efective for the country at that point and time
I believe the meaning of the Constitution when it was first thought of and drafted should never be forgotten because it is a great part in how we've gotten to be where we are. The intent of the Framers also should not leave our minds because it as well was a large part in how the Constitution came to be. However, I do believe that after all of these years the Constitution should be interpreted by the literal meaning as well as the modern interpretation. There must be a compromise in meanings because though we live by different rules and meanings in modern day society, many of the old interpretations are still in great use today. People try to walk around the laws enforced by the Constitution by finding different meanings and in that case there should be a more up to date interpretation but at the same time the literal meaning is still very important in how we live and how our government operates. - Ashlee R.
The Framers studied the history of past societies and governments. The principles that they based the Constitution on are timeless and apply to the past, present, and future. So the Constitution has no need to be modernized or updated unless carefully through the amendment process.
I would also have to agree that a balance of all three would be best. The Framers figured out what was best to get everything started, as well as continue, but over time things can change.
The constitution should be interpreted based upon modern interpretation. Simply because no one knows exactly what the intent of the framers was and doing it by literal meaning will only cause people to go in circles based off of how they interpret that "literal" meaning.
I think the constitution should be based on the best decisions for the country and the people because it just put us so far in dept it is not worth not changing it.
Post a Comment