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

Should the courts see the original meaning of the constitution - Research Paper causaurt Justice Antonin Scalia did not agreed with the idea of changing the interpretation, while Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wants it to change. The constitution should not be interfered with because it is the founding document of the unite States. The Founding Fathers originally made the document for government and believed over time that the world will change, also the nation was built on and the foundation the U.S stands severe on. This paper will argue that Justice Breyer is correct. The Founding Fathers wrote a flexible document that would grow over the centuries.The U.S constitution was put together by some(prenominal) menframers such 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 deem a fixed and stable meaning. He believed th at the time in which this constitution was created was special and that in the future people should name and address it when interpreting the laws (Sunstein, 1). In todays world thinking about the constitution has changed in some respects (although there are still people who agree with Madison). fit in to the Supreme Court Justice Stephen, in finding the meaning of the constitution, judges cannot neglect to choose 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 better life. Breyer makes his case very intelligently. He says, The court should reject approaches to interpreting the Constitution that consider the documents scope and application as fixed at the moment of framing . . . Rather, the court should regard the Constitutio n as containing unwavering values that must be applied flexibly to ever-changing