Originalist Approach To The Interpretation Of The Constitution

The United States Constitution sets the rules for the way in which the country is run. It tells the leaders what they can and cannot do, where their boundaries are, and the foundation which the country is based upon. The Constitution is the piece of writing which allows the general public to practice their religions and speech freely, or the debatable right for anyone to own a gun. Without this Constitution these things would be much more difficult. Although the Constitution is a written one, the interpretation of this work is still up to debate. Through judicial review, laws are determined whether they are Constitutional or not by the Supreme Court. As the power of the judiciary exists, the Originalist approach to Constitutional interpretation
Within originalism there are different forms that are allowed to take place, for examples some believe that two versions exist: skyscraper originalism and framework originalism. Within skyscraper originalism, the different branches of government: legislative, judicial, and the executive all engage in politics within the boundaries of the Constitution. This differs from that of framework originalism where the branches work together to create the Constitution. This is only possible as the way the Constitution was written was quite vague, meaning that it could be interpreted in many ways, causing for many to approach the document from different angles. This is where the importance of judicial interpretation
These would be instances such as how different jurors interpret the same constitution differently. This has happened on numerous occasions in the United States; even coming to the point when the court overturns a previous court’s decision. This is evident in cases such as Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. These cases both dealt with the subject of segregation and whether or not it can be considered unconstitutional. Plessy, which happened in the late 1800s, not long after the United States Civil War dealt with a man who refused to sit in the colored railway car as he was supposed to. Through this case it was declared that in fact this did fall within the Constitution as both colored and white people both were segregated to their own railway cars; meaning that if a white person wanted to sit in the colored car they would not be allowed to. This decision was then overturned in Brown v. Board of Education in the mid-1900s when the Supreme Court decided that segregation was detrimental to the development of colored people, making it unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth