1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
balu736 [363]
3 years ago
5

Define Originalism. What are the negatives and positives of Originalism?

History
1 answer:
andre [41]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

hey Emana! i hope this will help you!

Explanation:

In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified.  

Pros and cons

Pros

• If a constitution no longer meets the exigencies of a society's "evolving standard of decency", and the people wish to amend or replace the document, there is nothing stopping them from doing so in the manner which was envisioned by the drafters: through the amendment process. The Living Constitution approach would thus only be valuable in the absence of an amendment process.

• Originalism deters judges from unfettered discretion to inject their personal values into constitutional interpretation. Before one can reject originalism, one must find another criterion for determining the meaning of a provision, lest the "opinion of this Court [rest] so obviously upon nothing however the personal views of its members". Scalia has averred that "there is no other" criterion to constrain judicial interpretation.  

• Originalism helps ensure predictability and protects against arbitrary changes in the interpretation of a constitution; to reject originalism implicitly repudiates the theoretical underpinning of another theory of stability in the law, stare decisis.

• Contrary to critics of originalism, originalists do not always agree upon an answer to a constitutional question, nor is there any requirement that they have to. There is room for disagreement as to what original meaning was, and even more as to how that original meaning applies to the situation before the court. But the originalist at least knows what he is looking for: the original meaning of the text. Usually, that is easy to discern and simple to apply.  

Cons

• Legal controversy rarely arises over constitutional text with uncontroversial interpretations. How, then, does one determine the original "meaning" of an originally broad and ambiguous phrase? Thus, originalists often conceal their choice between levels of generality or possible alternative meanings as required by the original meaning when there is considerable room for disagreement.

• Originalism allows the dead hand of prior generations to control important contemporary issues to an extraordinary and unnecessary level of detail. While everyone agrees that broad constitutional principles should control, if the question is whether abortion is a fundamental right, why should past centuries-old intentions be controlling? The originalist's distinction between original meaning and original intention here is unclear due to the difficulty of discussing meaning in terms of specific details that the Constitutional text does not clarify.

• In writing such a broad phrase such as "cruel and unusual", it is considered implausible by some that the framers intended for its very specific meaning at that time to be permanently controlling. The purpose of phrases such as "cruel and unusual," rather, is specifically not to specify which punishments are forbidden, but to create a flexible test that can be applied over future centuries. Stated alternatively, there is no reason to think the framers have a privileged position in making this determination of what is cruel and unusual; while their ban on cruel punishment is binding on us, their understanding of the scope of the concept "cruel" need not be.

• If applied scrupulously, originalism requires the country either to continually reratify the Constitution in order to retain contemporary standards for tests such as "cruel and unusual punishment" or "unreasonable searches and seizures," or to change the language to specifically state that these tests shall be administered according to the standards of the society administering the test. Critics of originalism believe that the first approach is too burdensome, while the second is already inherently implied.

You might be interested in
What was it like for early Christians in the Roman Republic?
Dimas [21]
They had to endure criticism and hatred for being monotheistic during a time of paganism. it was seen as mutiny to the Roman Republic which had to keep its constituents "in line"
8 0
2 years ago
Difference between the "old right" and the "new right" in the 80s?
lawyer [7]

The difference between the "old right" and the "new right" in the 80s was in their movement towards participation in governing coalitions.

<h3>What is the old right?</h3>

The Old Right is simply an informal designation for a branch of American conservatism most prominent from  1910 to the mid-1950s, though it never became an organized movement.

Most of the members were Republicans. The term "Old Right" distinguishes them from their New Right successors who came to prominence in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

<h3>What is the new right?</h3>

The New Right refers to the movement of American conservatives in the 1970s and 1980s in opposition to liberal policies on taxes, abortion, affirmative action, and also foreign policy stances on the Soviet Union.

Thus, the difference between the "old right" and the "new right" in the 80s was in their movement towards participation in governing coalitions.

Learn more about American conservatives here:

brainly.com/question/23228677

#SPJ1

4 0
1 year ago
What was the point of brinkmanship
arlik [135]

The point was that it was negotiation for two parties, they would force interaction between eachother to get an advantage in the negotiation over the other.

Explanation:

Example: this was used as a policy in the US to coerce the Soviet Union into backing down militarily.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why was Frederick Douglass such an effective leader of the abolitionist movement
Lilit [14]

He became a leader in the abolitionist movement, which sought to end the practice of slavery, before and during the Civil War. After that conflict and the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862, he continued to push for equality and human rights until his death in 1895.
6 0
2 years ago
What are some heroic things Ruby Bridges did?
Ostrovityanka [42]

Answer

She fought against racism and overcame it,she was the first african american to go to a all white school.This was during a time in which lynchings were still common throughout the United States.

Explanation:

3 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • 1.)Which of the following called for African Americans to “pull themselves up from their own bootstraps”?. .
    7·2 answers
  • What date was it when the Muslim defeat Chinese
    10·1 answer
  • This Southeast Asian country was once a French colony, was split by war from 1954 to 1975, and currently exists as a unified, so
    8·2 answers
  • How much years in a century
    13·2 answers
  • Describe events that lead to the nazis final solution
    6·1 answer
  • The Gentleman's Agreement was made with Japan to stop the influx of Japanese Immigrants
    12·1 answer
  • I need help please:)<br> thxs
    9·2 answers
  • What role did slaves play in<br> the formation of the<br> Thirteen Colonies?
    9·1 answer
  • Part A The American Civil War was a defining moment in American history. The legacy of the war is still present today. Artists,
    14·1 answer
  • Can the government stop you from attending a Communist Party meeting?
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!