Constitutional Interpretation

Constitutional interpretation In this article I will explain and criticize the two main methods of interpretation of the Constitution. This is primitive and non - originism. I will do this through Christopher Wolfe's "How to Read the Constitution" and help from various sources on the Internet. I first introduced Wilf's primitivism, then I introduced other ways to explain the Constitution, the founder and explanation, and my view on primitivism and non-originality and their criticism I will complete it. .

In the constitutional interpretation of the United States of America, the living constitution (or moderate constitutionalism) is an assertion that the constitution has a dynamic meaning or a vibrant attribute in its changing sense. This idea should be related to the prospects of modern society when interpreting important constitutional phrases. The assertion of the "Lifestyle Constitution" is different, but generally it can be divided into two categories. First, since pragmatists believe that it is sometimes unacceptable to interpret the Constitution according to the original meaning and intent, evolutionary explanation is necessary. In the second part, the Constitutional authors treat intentions, claiming to write a special constitution in a widely flexible way to create such a vibrant "life" document.

The two arguments that support the concept of "living constitution" are the concept that the Constitution itself is silent about the problem of interpretation of the Constitution. Supporters of the current Constitution insist that the author of the Constitution, most of whom are trained attorneys and law theorists certainly knows these arguments; they conflict provide a clear explanation I also know that it is not provided by doing. If manufacturers say that future generations will interpret the Constitution in a specific way, they may have indicated this in the Constitution itself. Therefore, there is no guidance in the text of the "Constitution", a) there is no such consensus, or b) it indicates that the proposer is not going to adopt fixed constitutional interpretation.

Finally, there is a question to explain the intent of the constitutionalists on the way of interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution does not direct the interpretation directly. History also did not reveal strong evidence that constitutionalists tried to control their intentions. In fact, there is some evidence (such as the official secret of deliberations of the original constitutional conference and the lack of official official meeting minutes or more).