Interpreting the Constitution: Original Intent, Morality, and Precedent

Since the United States’ founding, we have stood as a beacon of freedom, hope, and innovation. After overreaching Monarchical oppression, lack of representation, and over-taxation, our founding fathers sought and fought for freedom. While engulfed in wars with foreign powers and empires much larger than our own, we have maintained our hope. Over the last three centuries, we have led the world in social and economic progress. Our rapid innovation and progress lead us to wonder: How can we interpret a document written for a nation in a vastly different position than that of today? 

 The primary methods of interpreting our Constitution are original intent, morality, and precedent. Each of these Constitutional philosophies has influenced judges and politicians throughout our history. Most significantly, these principles are utilized by our Supreme Court Justices to establish the highest law of the land. Though no specific philosophy is claimed or advocated by either political party, there are clear ties between certain interpretation methods and political affiliation. This report will outline each interpretation method, and provide examples of philosophy and effect.

To begin, the method with the most significant historical ties is original intent. Original intent is to read and analyze the Constitution through the lens of our founding fathers. Rather than letting outside modern influences dictate Constitutional meaning, originalists direct their focus on the initial reasoning of the founders. Robert Bork, a former judge and Supreme Court nominee is widely credited with being the first legal scholar to write opinions under the philosophy of originalism. Though not officially aligned with any specific political philosophy, those who make their judgments through original intent tend to lean conservative. Other self proclaimed originalists include Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Antonin Scalia, and Neil Gorsuch. With increasing pressure to return to originalism, the question is now: how do we determine the actual intent of the founding fathers?

Another notoriously popular method is making determinations through one’s personal moral beliefs. This often evokes the most emotion and is the most politically motivated interpretation. Instead of acknowledging the legal implications and the Constitutionality of a case, morally inclined judges will often include their own biases and beliefs in their judgments, rather than making the most Constitutionally sound decision. While we often applaud “standing for what is right,”  when you are in such an esteemed position it is necessary to cast aside one's feelings to make a Constitutionally accurate decision. Clear instances of morally focused rulings were made by Justices William Douglas and Byron White. Justice Douglas, appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt, was among the most liberal justices in American history. Douglas is remembered specifically for his handling of First Amendment matters and for laying the framework for future LGBT, abortion, and immigration decisions. Justice White, on the other hand, is considered the most conservative Justice in modern US history for his staunch support for substantive due process and his almost lone dissent in the original Roe v. Wade ruling. Despite these Justices differing in nearly every case, they both utilized moral reasoning, cementing this philosophy in our history books.

The final significant Constitutional philosophy is legal precedents. Rather than interpreting the intent of the Constitutional framers, or relying on one’s moral stances, some legal scholars use previously set precedents to make their rulings. These precedents can allow judges and justices to analyze previous rulings, while comparing it to present evidence and reasonings. Theoretically, this allows for the most accurate interpretation of the Constitution. Justices who practice this method consistently, however, are few and far between. The most recent Justice that consistently followed this principle was Joseph Story in the 1800s, who is widely regarded as the best legal mind in the history of the Court.  

It is truly impossible to determine one “correct” way of analyzing the Constitution, and one must combine all three methods to some degree when making a legitimate Constitutional analysis. The Constitution is a living document that remains necessary to our democracy after hundreds of years. For this reason, we must continue to stress the importance of sound Constitutional philosophy for the next generation of legal scholars.