Antonio Scalia’s philosophy of “originalism” is at bottom a method for deriving meaning from the US Constitution. That is, he uses the philosophy of originalism to understand what rule the Constitutions prescribes or fails to recognize for the law. In line with our previous constitutional making debate Scalia’s legal opinion of originalism was in deed upheld.
Our debate proceeded progressively well mostly leaning on the originalists ideologies from the beginning. The steps which were followed surely supports the underlying belief of the likes of Scalia as manifested in his exuberating speech delivered. It can also be argued that the proceedings leading to the constitutional achievement obeyed the principles outlined the originalisms proponents speech. In the speech essential principles are suggestively communicated and close observation on the proceeding reveals adherence to the principles.
Doubtlessly the experience supports the originalist ideologies as means of constitutional interpretation in united state. To start with, the originalist holds that constitutional interpretation should begin with the text, the meaning that is born when it was adopted by the people. The law counsel asserts that the constitutional interpretation should be given the original text meaning enshrined when it was adopted by the people.
Of utmost importance is the reminder Justice Scalia pointed out that, there was great need for consideration on matters pertaining to constitutional interpretation to its provisions expensive meaning so as that they will accommodate events that you may not know but are likely to happen in the future. Furthermore, he echoed that the constitutional amendment should be strongly guided by the original meaning of the rule of the law. He also mentioned that at times judges distort the good meaning of the constitution.
According to Judge Scalia the constitution guarantees the right to be presented by the counsel. Concerning the interpretation of such like matters requires the initial understanding of the law. The substance process needs to be clear not to create confusion and loss of the intended meaning.
However much Scalia insist on stick on originality, he remains clear that he his not a proponent of rigidity. He subscribes to the principle of flexibility of the constitution. It is literally true, that change is real and that the rule of law are never casted on stones hence we cannot resist that changes in the constitution especially relating to the changes that have arisen due to the changes in the society currently.
Nevertheless, liberal thinking demands that even if constitutional changes takes place, the original aspiration is held without deviation. Unless the initial legal ambition is maintained the constitution becomes vulnerable to unnecessary mutilation that interferers with people’s interest. This is detrimental to a nation such as ours, because citizens can easily revolt, creating opportunities for retrogressive activities hampering economical, social and political endeavors.
In conclusion, the originalist have a issue when it comes to the terminology used the constitution. As much as he agrees that there are preferred linguistic terms applicable in law he proposes that while writing, re-writing or amending the law one needs to use a language understandable to most people. He fearlessly opposes the use of bombastic words or terms claiming that it creates confusion to the democratically adopted constitution. To him this is dangerous as people may fail to exercise their civil rights when called upon or they may undermine the law altogether.