The Case Of The United States Constitution - 1354 Words

When relating a historical document to a contemporary situation, context is integral to proper analyzation. In the case of the United States Constitution, many political theorists share their opinion, on what they believe to be, the optimal interpretation of the document, however, only Antonin Scalia’s originalist ideology repels personal and moral views during analysis and encourages understanding the Constitution as originally intended. It is not the job of a United States judge, nor should it be the job of one, to intervene their personal beliefs and morals with the law when making a judicial decision. Instilling inappropriate factors in legal decisions causes potential inconsistency and, occasionally, bias, both of which would set†¦show more content†¦Heller allow for the examination of originalism being successfully implemented during supreme court trials. A judge remaining impartial is crucial towards decisions made by a court. Although it may not be apparent, n on-originalists tend not to be as truthful when enforcing the law than originalists since they often involve outside morals or beliefs that do not pertain to the document itself. According to Antonin Scalia, â€Å"Non-originalist opinions have almost always had the decency to lie, or at least to dissemble, about what they were doing--either ignoring strong evidence of original intent that contradicted the minimal recited evidence of an original intent congenial to the court’s desires, or else not discussing the original intent at all, speaking in terms of broad constitutional generalities with no pretense of historical support.† The acquisition of a bias can sway the court’s decision towards an incorrect stance, thus, making it very important that non-originalist views aren’t involved in Constitutional readings. Consistency in court ruling is also essential to a constitutional theory. Capital punishment, although currently controversial, was a frequent co nsequence of murder in the late 1700s. It is indirectly mentioned twice in the Constitution. First, it is mentioned in the 8th amendment of article 7: â€Å"...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted†. Secondly, it is mentioned in the 14th amendment of article 7:†...nor shall any State deprive any person