Original Intent Argument Analysis

The Constitution of the United States is a document representing the supreme law do the land. Supreme Court Justices are vested with the power of evaluating this document with corresponding laws and coming up with judgment on their relevancy and constitutionality. However, justices often find themselves at odds on how to decipher the documents original meaning; much like in Obergefell vs Hodges, where Justices Kennedy and Roberts disagree on how the Constitution should be interpreted. In a "Concise Guide to the Federalist Papers," written by Gregory Maggs, the “original meaning” of the constitution is broken down into three different definitions that can be used as foundations for assessing the logic that stems from court opinions. Based off
of his definitions the majority opinion can be seen to run an original intent claim, while Roberts dissent operates on original objective meaning. If given a chance for commentary in the dispute, rather than establish a “correct” position, Maggs would highlight why each side may have chosen their analytical route.
In order to justify how the majority opinion represents an original intent argument, there must be an established definition for original intent.
Defined by Maggs original intent can be seen as “the meaning that the Framers of the Constitution—the delegates who drafted the document in 1787—intended the Constitution to have”. For this perspective simply saying the words “right to bear arms” does not mean what it literally says; instead, they see the second amendment as the framers acknowledgment for the necessity of an armed populous. Leaving breathing room for legislation such as gun registration and background checks, in other words allowing the Constitution to “live” through the legislation of the generation that it is presiding over. Evidence of the majority holding this perspective is clear through statements such as
this:
“It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be con- demned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civiliza- tion’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”

Justice Kennedy finds it necessary to point out the implications of the law rather than looking at looking at it from a purely textual perspective, in doing so he draws a line connecting liberty and equality to the contentment and unity that marriage may provide. Maggs would support that this embodies what original intent is because Kennedy is manufacturing associations between what the Constitution actually says, and what the framers probably meant. Maggs would add that logic for this thought process stems primarily from the author, and that only Madison would be able to provide an indication of what the framers actually intended.
Assessing Justice Roberts position is significantly easier, because at multiple times in his dissent, he clearly states that the objective information provided by the legislation and Constitution should dictate opinion.
That position is one that “looks at a variety of writings from the founding period to discerns the customary meaning of words and phrases in the Constitution”. Roberts’ statements such as, “It distorts the constitutional text, which guarantees only whatever “process” is “due” before a person is deprived of life, liberty, and property”. Here Roberts clearly draws a distinction between what the text says and how the majority has expanded the definition. Maggs would say that this point of view is mostly solid in foundation, being purely text based, however he would make the point to say that the founder’s words may not be unpolluted in nature “because partisan bias may have influenced the authors’ choice of words and
phrases”.
In summation it is easy to see that the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy embodies original intent in how he looks for the essence in the law the framers put in words, while Justice Roberts takes a more detached track, relying heavily on the boundaries provided by the words themselves. And Maggs, if given the opportunity, would chime in to say that each perspective has their holes, but if properly applied with substantiated evidence, each position holds weight.