Please read the following opinion article from time magazine. What is originalism? Do you agree with the author or Justice Scalia? Why? What are the respective problems with the differing interpretations? What are the implications of Scalia's point of view?
6 Comments
Jose Hernandez
9/22/2010 01:38:40 pm
Originalism is when everything like certain matters are back the way they use to be. I do not agree with Justice Scalia because the Constitution states we are all equal. There is no amendment that discriminates towards the type of sex a person is. I believe he is wrong in his statement of the fourteenth amendment.The problem with the different interpretations is that people will have a different perspective in a sense where they still believe in their viewpoints. I believe the Constitution is still a living document because ever since it was signed its rules got into effect and are what have been running the country ever since.
Reply
Mayra Hernandez
9/22/2010 01:54:48 pm
Originalism means that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally want it to. Justice Scalia is a person that takes things to literal, so he says that if in the Constitution it says all men are created equal then only men are. Unlike the author he sees everyone equal. The author lives in the present and sees that women also should be treated equal to men .The author counts women and other minorities in what the Constitution says that all men are created equal, he not only thinks men. The author mentioned that “the constitution would be poor set of rights if it were locked in the 1780s.” What he means is that not only because it states only men, women or other minorities aren’t created equal. I personality agree with the author because I think that women should be treated equal as men are. The respective problems with the differing are that Justice Scalia is in a locked in mode, so there for he thinks that only men are equal and no one else so women, minorities, and gays aren’t equal as men. Unlike the author he is liberal, the bad thing about him being this way is that original idea can get lost. Women and minorities, and gays and many more would have to fight to get laws passed which specifically indicates all of their rights. Scalia stated that “if the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex” “you have legislature.” So this shows that he really is against women’s rights and that is why I disagree with Scalia.
Reply
Orbin Flores
9/22/2010 02:48:27 pm
Originalism is the belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it. I agree with the author because he sees everyone equal and doesn’t have anything against sex discrimination. Also because he sees that everyone should be equal upon the law and not only men how the constitution sates it. Adding to that that women as men have the same importance in society in that they also help with the work. Some respective problems with the differing interpretations are that women and other type of sexes are being discriminated and their rights are being ignore more like violated just because they are not stated in an amendment. The implications of Scalia’s point of view is that he is strongly against women rights and he only sees men as all equal and that they have more rights than women. But I believe that if the Constitution is in effect that we should follow it and give the women their rights too as same as men because both sexes keep this country going.
Reply
9/23/2010 02:47:57 am
Originalism is when you try and find the orignal meaning of something that is being interpeted in a differnt way.yes I fully agree with scalia because in the constitution it does not say anything about discrimination about any race. I think he is wrong about the 14 amendment and every one has a diffrent oppinon on it. The Constitution is in effect and has made our country that much better then others therefore I think women and men have the same rights and both sexs should be given the same rights.
Reply
Sofia Glorio
9/23/2010 06:32:57 am
Originalism is the principle belief that the U.S Constitution should be interpreted in the way the original authors wanted it to be. I fully agree with the author because he notices the original amendment for human basic rights and that everyone is to be equal, not to be discriminated based on sex. A couple of retrospective problems with the differing interpretations could be that women are being discriminated and so are their rights because that is not specifically recognized in an admendment. Scalia's point is easily interpreted that is he is strongly against women's right and believes that men are a higher power. I believe the Constitution is still effective and should protect everyone's rights - including women.
Reply
Sharlene Gomez
9/23/2010 02:02:19 pm
Originalism is the principle of interpretation in which history is brought back to the way it used to be; and in this matter it is the Constitution being restated as if we were again living in the 1780's. Antonin Scalia's theory that women should be removed from the Constitution - and not be protected by it is completely ridiculous. The Constitution was brought up by our founding father's to be used as a template to prosper and grow "equally" and "freely"; not to be discriminated by one another and treated unfairly. We were all born as humans, and stated in the constitution, it states all men under god. For woman as well fall equally into that category, as do men. I believe that Scalia's point is one to be forgotten; for the Constitution still empowers our government and has set out for our country to come across great success.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Mr. LPart teacher/part entertainer/ part coach/ part task master Archives
November 2014
Categories |