Ambiguity Of A Living Constitution

Through this quote, Madison is cementing the understanding that the founders wanted to keep the Constitution accessible to Americans of all upbringings. The argument for Original intent refuses to acknowledge that the document’s conciseness of the document is a leading factor on how it can be interpreted. It was never meant to be a closed text, it was made to be expanded on. Another topic that is of importance to the living constitutionalism argument is the ambiguity of the language made out throughout the text. The text is ultimately naked in character, as presented from the Philadelphia convention, this is the reason the text is deliberate in its vagueness. As previously stated, the Founding fathers vastly disagreed on multiple steps and
Roper v Simmons, was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it was unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The 5-4 decision overruled the Court's prior ruling upholding such sentences on offenders above or at the age of 16, in Stanford v. Kentucky (1989), overturning statutes in 25 states that had the penalty set lower . Whereas, Atkin versus Virginia, was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6-3 that executing people with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments, but states can define who has intellectual disability . Through a living constitution the 8th and 14th amendment have allowed the interpretation of cases like Roper and Atkins to develop. The fundamental basis for the cases are integral to a living constitution is argued to be more prevalent. The conclusion that execution of juveniles or mentally unstable persons is now considered cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment, which was due to societies evolving standards of human decency. Neither of these cases would have been brought to court if they had been interpreted through the lens of originalists because interpreting the constitutional framework in this context would once of been
Gitlow versus New York, was a decision by the Supreme Court that expressed the 14th Amendment of Constitution had extended the reach of certain limitations on federal government authority set forth in the 1st Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states. This case was one of a series of Supreme Court cases that defined the scope of the 1st Amendment's protection of free speech and established the standard to which a state or the federal government would be held when it criminalized speech or writing. Gitlow versus New York, is an example of how originalist interpretations throughout the courts is not paramount – like how Justice Scalia promoted it to be. Through this case, it was established that the courts made a mistake on wrongfully committing an individual. Justice Sandford – the reigning judge during the acquittal, delivered the opinion that “Benjamin Gitlow was indicted in the Supreme Court of New York…for the statutory crime of criminal anarchy…He was separately tried, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment. The judgement was affirmed by the appellate division and by the Court of Appeals… The case is here writ of error to the Supreme Court, to which the records was remitted… The contention is that the statue, by its terms and applied in this case, is