The constitution provides the foundation on which the society and its subjects determines what behaviors are legal, and which are in violation of the rights of self as well as others. Thus, it functions as a prohibitory tool, which safeguards individuals as well as institutions from any kind of malice. While that is the case, it also protects and provides subjects with various privileges thereby promoting freedom and liberty. However, in question is the basis on which laws were based and what their intent was. During trials, judges and lawyers refer to laws for guidance with the ultimate goal being pursuit of justice and fairness. When it comes to interpreting the constitution, judges use a theory called the doctrine of original intent whereby they try to understand what a particular law or regulation meant at the time it was drafted. This forms the basis for their rulings.
Baude (2015) analyzed the doctrine of original intent using a concept called originalism. He described this particular concept noting that “… the original meaning of a document is its real meaning and that anything else is making it up” (Baude, 2015, p. 2351). Thus, putting the American constitution into context, this means that whatever laws are in this particular document are real and that any other law created outside of this document will not be considered real, and is therefore made up. To some degree, the doctrine of original intent helps promote various values such as the rule of law, efficiency, democratic self-governance, predictability, stability, as well as substantive goodness (Baude, 2015). The implication here is that the doctrine promotes what one could consider a unanimous application of laws in the constitution thereby achieving a state of stability, while also advocating for democracy. Powell (1985) explained that the doctrine of original intent is, in itself, a representation of the framers’ pursuit of common law. Their aim was to create a statutory construction that would provide a unified legal basis on which the society and its subject would act upon or abide by.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, a major setback with the doctrine in question is that interpretation is not natural following numerous possibilities in determining what particular statements mean. Powell (1985) noted that the framers of the U.S. constitution understood that unforeseen situations would arise, which would question or challenge the application of the laws they created. For instance, Scheiber (1988) argued that the constitution does not provide a clear definition of what economic liberty means and to what extent it should be exercises. Therefore, this has led to emergence of controversies due to one particular way of interpreting the constitution. Thus, owing to the fact that interpretation is not inherent, thereby making it subjective, it becomes difficult to ascertain the real intent of the constitution and its provisions.
The doctrine of original intent could be compared to another doctrine such as the burden of proof principle. This demands that no American jurisdiction should authorize conviction of an individual, the defendant, without having proof beyond reasonable doubt (Jeffries & Stephan, 1988). This means that the prosecution is expected to provide evidence demonstrating the defendant’s guilt, and which cannot be questioned on the basis of its admissibility or truth. However, just like the doctrine of original intent, the burden of proof principle is limited in that it does not provide a clear explanation of what “beyond reasonable doubt” means. In this particular case, it becomes difficult to determine whether an individual is guilty or not. Furthermore, the burden of proof doctrine does not pursue the truth, but rather the facts of a case. While it can prevent conviction of an innocent individual, it might lead to the release of a guilty party.
Conclusion
The doctrine of original intent bases on interpretation of the constitution whereby judges seek to identify the true or intended meaning of the framers. In doing so, they make judgments based on their understanding of the constitution. However, there being no inherent way to interpret such a document, the doctrine becomes ineffective such as is the case with the burden of proof principle.
References
Baude, W. (2015). Is originalism our law? Columbia Law Review, 11 : 2349-2507.
Jeffries, J., & Stephan, P. (1979). Defenses, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof in the Criminal Law. The Yale Law Journal, 88 (7), 1325-1407. doi:10.2307/795725
Powell, H. (1985). The original understanding of original intent. Harvard Law Review, 98 (5): 885-948.
Scheiber, H. (1988). Original Intent, History, and Doctrine: The Constitution and Economic Liberty. The American Economic Review, 78 (2), 140-144. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/stable/1818112
