The article discusses the challenges of interpreting the U.S. Constitution in today’s context, particularly amidst the rise of originalism in the Supreme Court. It contrasts originalist beliefs—which hold that the Constitution's meaning is fixed—with living constitutionalism, advocating for interpretations that evolve. This approach is seen as essential in addressing modern complexities. The author draws an analogy to classical music interpretation, suggesting that a thoughtful blend of accuracy and creativity is necessary for meaningful constitutional discourse, highlighting the urgent need for nuanced legal interpretations in contemporary debates.
The originalist methodology fails to acknowledge the role that one's individual judgment inevitably plays in interpretation, promoting an illusion of total objectivity that complicates legal analysis.
Legal scholars and judges must confront the Constitution's meaning with sensitivity and creativity, akin to performers interpreting complex compositions, balancing tradition with relevance.
Collection
[
|
...
]