Government originalism OR non-Originalism Non-Original Interpretation of the Constitution

A substantial amount of debate has occurred in recent times regarding questions of legislation and the interpretation of the constitution. The two primary factions in this debate are that of the originalists, which are largely in favor of a literal interpretation of the constitution and the intention of its founding authors, and that of non-originalists, which are more likely to consider the outcome of such a literal interpretation while recognizing other factors, such as precedent setting (via the judicial branch of government) and conceptions of universal law. Although there are logical reasons to favor arguments propounded by both factions, a thoroughly analysis of the pertinent issues at stake allows one to see that the non-originalist perspective is the one best adapted to suit a contemporary American society.

One of the most eminent arguments of those in favor of originalism is that legislation...

Originalists strive to justify contemporary legislation in terms and intentions that determined by the original authors of the constitution. Although it is commendable to have a basis for legislation in this or any other country, proponents for both sides of the debate between originalists and non-originalists must maintain an awareness that the Constitution was written hundreds of years ago, and that the world as it was envisioned and written about in that document has changed drastically. During the time between the writing of the Constitution and the present day, numerous changes have occurred in the way American society functions. One of the most principle changes is in regards to the status of minorities and African-Americans in particular. Judging by the original writing of the Constitution, slaves were only three-fifths of a human being. Therefore, the…