A constitution is the reference document that governs the wellbeing of nations or states depending on the stipulated laws. There are two types of constitution, namely the written, which has room for amendments and the unwritten constitution, which are unique depending on the geopolitical location of a government globally. Ideally, constitutions are vital because they help governments to define and protect the natural rights of citizens. However, the interpretation of the constitution serves as the main challenge because of the ideology's interpreters presume in making logical inferences based on statutory laws. Even though the constitution is essential in defining the rights of citizens in a nation, its interpretation is a contentious issue with groups differing in ideologies based on originality of intent and judicial activism. The analysis evaluates the leading proponents of each side of the debate, their viewpoint on the constitution, and how their interpretational philosophies impacted the court’s ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut.
The Main Proponents on Each Side of the Debate
The framers of the constitutions serve as the main proponents of the originality of intent of the constitution. Based on this perspective, the proponents look at the constitution in justifying decisions in a court of law proceedings. ( K elso , 2017). The implication is the specific or general historical intent is significant in giving the original meaning. For instance, this translates to the specific intent of the framers being considered in controlling the outcomes of particular types of cases ( K elso , 2017) . While there is the current meaning of the constitution, originality of intent is confined to understanding the constitution from the perspective of the founding fathers. Based on this definition, judicial decision-making styles should follow the originality of the intent of the constitutional framers.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The opponent of the originality of intent is the judicial activist. In contrast, Judicial activism focuses on court systems making judicial rulings based on the personal opinion of the presiding judges as opposed to the constitutional requirement. As a result, judicial activism is mainly tied to the constitutional interpretation in which many at times overturns the ordinary course of the law. According to Minto (2018) , perversion of the penumbra implies that the supreme court can cut through legislative deadlock based on a fundamental right stated in the constitution. The implication would be a court ruling on the personal basis of a judge, as opposed to the originality of intent of the framers of the constitution resulting in a difference in interpretation of the law.
Their arguments for or against their perspective on the constitution
Arguments for the originality of intent supports the perspective of founding fathers in the interpretation of texts. It means that the context of interpreting court cases needs to be objective as opposed to being subjective. As a result, Mccarthy (2018) , points out that originalists make constitutional interpretation by determining the intent behind the specific provision of the original public meaning at the time of ratification. Consequently, the effect would be to help court procession to align with what the statues aimed to accomplish based on legal text. The originality of intent, therefore, helps to ensure predictability and protects against arbitrary changes that might take effect in the interpretation of the constitution ( Mccarthy , 2018) . Therefore, to reject originality of intent points at interfering with the stability of the legal statutes that are present within the constitution.
In contrast, arguments against the originality of intent consider legal controversy arising in the constitutional text that results in uncontroversial interpretation. The proponents of judicial activism hold the position that supporters of the originality of intent, at times, hide their main intentions of constitutional interpretation based on alternative meaning or generalities ( Lewis, 2020) . It gives ground to judicial activism, which challenges the determination of originality of meaning based on generalities that seem ambiguous. In most cases, either option often gives room for considerable disagreement, which causes the rise of controversial interpretation of the law.
Impacts of interpretational philosophies in determining Griswold v. Connecticut
In the court case, Griswold v. Connecticut, the supreme court invalidated the statute on the grounds of violation of rights to marital privacy. Ideally, the statute prohibited the use of any medical drugs, articles, or instruments aimed at preventing conception. Based on the originality of intent, the law was denying the citizens the right to access medical information or assistance about conception among couples ( Mccarthy, 2018 ; Minto, 2018) . However, judicial activism necessitated the judges preceding over the case to consider the bill of rights of individual citizens in which their privacy would be infringed. Under this law, married couples could not seek medical advice because it would be considered illegal and risked a fine or jail term were, they found. Hence, judicial activism ruled in favor of protecting the privacy rights of citizens based on constitutional amendments before invalidating the statute.
Conclusively, originality of intent focuses on objective understanding and interpretation of the constitution based on its framer's perspective. In contrast, judicial activism is a subjective concept that invalidates laws that oppressed the individual rights of citizens. Notably, the proponent of the originality of intent focuses on understanding the constitution based on facts on paper as opposed to the circumstantial situation. Its detractors consider the wellbeing of citizens, by protecting the rights based on the constitution. Evidence provided points at the difference in interpretational philosophies playing a part to invalidate court ruling of Griswold v. Connecticut.
References
K elso , R. R. (2017). Contra Scalia, Thomas, and Gorsuch: Originalists Should Adopt A Living Constitution. University of Miami Law Review , 72 (1), 112–175.
Lewis, M. S. (2020). Evil History: Protecting Our Constitution Through an Anti-Originalism Canon of Constitutional Interpretation. University of New Hampshire Law Review , 18 (2), 261–308 .
Mccarthy, E. (2018). In Defense of Griswold V. Connecticut: Privacy, Originalism, and the Iceberg Theory of Omission. Willamette Law Review , 54 (2), 335–370.
Minto, D. (2018). Perversion by Penumbras: Wolfenden, Griswold, and the Transatlantic Trajectory of Sexual Privacy. American Historical Review , 123 (4), 1093–1121. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1093/ahr/rhy027
