02 April 2005
Originalism and Courage
Justice Antonin Scalia is a proponent of originalism on the Supreme Court. As described in the March 28, 2005 New Yorker, this doctrine holds that the words of the Constitution speak for themselves. Put another way, the drafters and ratifiers of our basic law had plenty of time to consider its meaning: if the nation truly wishes to change the intent of that document, it has adequate political means to accomplish that objective. It is not the role of the courts to change the Constitution pursuant to convincing arguments before the bench.
If standards of equity have evolved since the adoption of certain clauses of the Constitution (e.g. those allowing segregation or the prohibition of abortion and homosexuality), then the appropriate method for correcting the lack of correspondence between them is the amendment process, not adjudication. It takes courage for individual politicians to challenge obsolete laws that have entrenched constituencies. It also takes commitment and energy on the part of individuals to demand action by government officials or to undertake popular initiatives to make those changes. However, it is a lazy man’s choice to leave that battle up to the wits and consciences of an elite of our best legal minds.
Justice Antonin Scalia is a proponent of originalism on the Supreme Court. As described in the March 28, 2005 New Yorker, this doctrine holds that the words of the Constitution speak for themselves. Put another way, the drafters and ratifiers of our basic law had plenty of time to consider its meaning: if the nation truly wishes to change the intent of that document, it has adequate political means to accomplish that objective. It is not the role of the courts to change the Constitution pursuant to convincing arguments before the bench.
If standards of equity have evolved since the adoption of certain clauses of the Constitution (e.g. those allowing segregation or the prohibition of abortion and homosexuality), then the appropriate method for correcting the lack of correspondence between them is the amendment process, not adjudication. It takes courage for individual politicians to challenge obsolete laws that have entrenched constituencies. It also takes commitment and energy on the part of individuals to demand action by government officials or to undertake popular initiatives to make those changes. However, it is a lazy man’s choice to leave that battle up to the wits and consciences of an elite of our best legal minds.
Comments:
Post a Comment
