With these thoughts in mind:
Post by Day 3 at least two strengths and two limitations related to the Supreme Court making policy by interpreting ambiguous constitutional language. Be specific and justify your response.
Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the Learning Resources.
Judicial Philosophy and Establishment of Rights
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson defined inalienable rights as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Although this statement is very vague and unclear as to what liberty and the pursuit of happiness entail, it provides rights to all citizens of the United States. Ambiguous language is used throughout the Constitution, which makes its interpretation a daunting task for Supreme Court Justices ruling on controversial cases.
There are two schools of thought for interpreting the U.S. Constitution: Originalism and Living Document Philosophy. Justice Antonin Scalia favors Originalism, which means the Constitutions interpretation should pertain to the original intent of the document. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg favors Living Document Philosophy, which leaves the interpretation up to the changing moral, political, and cultural climate of the times.
Out of respect for the legacy of the founding fathers and the central identity of U.S. democracy, the Constitution will never undergo revision, but rather, can be amended. Originalists do not want an amendment to detract from the genuine Constitutional document. Conversely, Living Document Philosophy sees amendments as the Constitutions intended legacy.
To prepare for this Discussion: