Should the courts see the original meaning of the constitution Research Paper

Should the courts see the original meaning of the disposition - Research Paper Exampleurt Justice Antonin Scalia did not agreed with the idea of changing the interpretation, while self-governing Court Justice Stephen Breyer wants it to change. The writing should not be interfered with because it is the founding document of the United States. The Founding Fathers to begin with made the document for government and believed over time that the world will change, also the nation was construct on and the foundation the U.S stands strong on. This paper will argue that Justice Breyer is correct. The Founding Fathers wrote a conciliatory document that would grow over the centuries.The U.S constitution was put together by several menframers such(prenominal) as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and John Adams. However, James Madison was known to be the father of the constitution because he wrote the constitution in 1778. Madison believed that a consitution should have a fixed and stable meani ng. He believed that the time in which this constitution was created was special and that in the future people should reference it when interpreting the laws (Sunstein, 1). In todays world thinking about the constitution has changed in some respects (although there are quieten people who agree with Madison). According to the Supreme Court Justice Stephen, in finding the meaning of the constitution, resolve cannot neglect to consider the probable consequences of different interpretations. (Breyer, 74) Scientifically we do not have the technology go back in time and ask our Founding Fathers what exactly they meant word for word about the constitution. We do understand why they wrote it that way, so that people in our society can have a cleanse life. Breyer makes his case very intelligently. He says, The court should reject approaches to interpreting the Constitution that consider the documents scope and industriousness as fixed at the moment of framing . . . Rather, the court shou ld regard the Constitution as containing fast(a) values that must be applied flexibly to ever-changing