Constitutional Perfectionism

This paper will argue that perfectionism, the idea that we should interpret the American Constitution so as to make it the best it can be, is the most adequate method used in judicial decision-making. Perfectionists follow the Constitution’s text, yet they may choose to interpret the meaning of the text in a way, which ultimately reflects their own beliefs regarding all the fundamental questions that arise in the courts. Within this method, the constitution can be portrayed as a living organism, and with the passing of time, this organism evolves and adjusts to current moral conditions, and fundamental questions of the law. Aside from perfectionism, also known as living constitutionalism, there are two other highly involved theories in judicial
For example, if the Constitution did not originally permit same-sex marriage, then Congress would not be entitled to recognize same sex marriage as a right. Constitutional fundamentalism can be seen as the sister of religious fundamentalism. Constitutional fundamentalists seek to the Constitution for their “guidance” and they do not strip the text of any meaning. Since the beginning of religion, many worshippers relied on the literal meaning of sacred text, such as the Bible or the Koran, which is ultimately synonymous with the Constitution in this example. Living Constitutionalism invokes the notion that the Constitution has a meaning beyond its historical text and is an evolving and dynamic document that adapts to the present day with ideals that are cast in the best light. Societal changes are inevitable and are inflicted by a plethora of factors such as the constant change of the economic and political world. That being said, interpreting the Constitution strictly based on its literal and historical meaning, might not produce the most appealing effect in some selected
Controversial cases that had changed American society are a great example as to how living constitutionalism is a positive notion to implement. Such legal reasoning was implemented in Brown v. Board of Education, a case relating to the segregation of public schools on the basis of race. Prior to the final decision of the case, the judges were five to four in favor of the constitutionality of segregation in public schools. Some judges were in favor due to the fact that they didn’t believe segregation was unconstitutional based on the original meaning of the Constitution. Luckily, the judges came to their senses and disregarded what the Constitution had “originally” intended to say. “In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.