The Difference between Originalism and a “Living Constitution” Interpretation

The Difference between Originalism and a “Living Constitution” Interpretation
Originalism is a constitutional interpretation approach that holds that the meaning of the United States Constitution should be interpreted based on its original understanding at the time it was written. Originalists argue that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the intentions of its framers and ratifiers and that its meaning should remain fixed over time. They believe that the Constitution is a document with a specific and limited set of principles that should guide judicial decision-making.

On the other hand, those who believe in a “living Constitution” interpret the Constitution as a dynamic and flexible document that evolves with society. They argue that the framers intended the Constitution to be adaptable to changing times and circumstances. Proponents of a “living Constitution” argue that its principles and values should be applied to contemporary issues, even if they were not explicitly addressed by the framers.

Foundational Principle Established in Marbury v. Madison
The foundational principle established in Marbury v. Madison is judicial review. The case, decided in 1803, held that the Supreme Court has the power to review the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and to declare them void if they are found to be in violation of the Constitution. This landmark decision established the principle of judicial review, making the Supreme Court the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation.

True or False: Broad Interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause after 1937
False. After 1937, the Supreme Court did not unanimously use a broad interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Prior to 1937, the Court had adopted a narrow interpretation of the clause, limiting Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. However, in 1937, there was a shift in the Court’s approach, known as the “switch in time that saved nine,” where the Court began to adopt a more expansive interpretation of the clause. This allowed Congress greater authority to regulate various aspects of economic activity. Nonetheless, there have been instances where the Court has limited Congress’s power under the Interstate Commerce Clause, showing that it does not always use a broad interpretation.

Seminal 1950’s Case on Presidential Power during War
The seminal 1950’s case that articulated the limits on Presidential power during times of war is Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, also known as the Steel Seizure Case. The case arose during the Korean War when President Harry Truman ordered the seizure of steel mills to prevent a labor strike that would have disrupted steel production for military purposes. The Supreme Court held that Truman’s actions were unconstitutional because they exceeded his authority as President. The Court established a three-tiered framework for evaluating the scope of presidential power in times of crisis, known as the “Youngstown framework.” This framework has been influential in shaping the limits on presidential power during war and other emergencies.

Doctrine of the Dormant Commerce Clause
The Supreme Court has adopted the doctrine known as the “dormant commerce clause” to address situations where states regulate interstate commerce in a way that burdens or discriminates against out-of-state commerce. The dormant commerce clause refers to the implicit negative implications of the Commerce Clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. While Congress has explicit power to regulate interstate commerce, courts have inferred from this clause that states are prohibited from unduly burdening or discriminating against interstate commerce.

The doctrine of the dormant commerce clause serves as a check on state power and ensures that states do not erect barriers to interstate trade or favor local economic interests over national ones. It allows courts to strike down state laws that unconstitutionally interfere with interstate commerce, even when Congress has not explicitly acted in that area. The Supreme Court has used this doctrine to invalidate state laws that create unnecessary obstacles to interstate trade or discriminate against out-of-state businesses, thereby preserving a unified national market.