Reading the Constitution Essay

In their essay, How Not to Read the report, Lawrence Tribe and Michael Dorf get wind the ways the nature has been visualiseed by different people. Tribe and Dorf carry it clear that the idea that the Constitution should be experienceed base on what the framers original intent was is non the way to read the Constitution, it takes much to a greater extent than that. Tribe and Dorf also explain that justices do not interpret the Constitution in a way that would please the readers (the people) on purpose, because if that were so thus the authority of the Constitution would lose all legitimacy if it really were merely a mirror for the readers ideals and ideas (p.49).This means that people have the tendency to interpret the Constitution based on their cause beliefs. Also, the justices themselves have their own beliefs and their own interpretations of the Constitution, entirely they should not come up with a finding based solely on their own intuitive feelings. The exact way t o read the Constitution is indefinable, therefore in their essay, Tribe and Dorf instead draw how not to interpret it and implied that justices should guard wise decisions that are not entirely based on their own beliefs, the original intents of the framers made generations ago, or the expectations of the public now.In the sheath Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Planned Parenthood was challenging a Pennsylvania law that placed nigh restrictions on abortion. some(prenominal) opponents of abortion hoped that the Supreme Court would use the case to strike pull down the decision made in roe v. walk, which subjects that a state dislodge on all abortions is unconstitutional. The legal age of the court voted not to do so. This is a good case for providing insight into the way justices interpret the constitution and make their decisions.Justice of the Supreme Court Sandra Day OConnor wrote the majority opinion for the case. The majority voted not to overr ule the decision made in Roe v. Wade. OConnor wrote on behalf of the majority and wrote in the opinion that the main reasons for this decision were based on the principle of stare decisis and the fact that the cases central ruling is workable for the states and does not come at odds with other precedents. Also, OConnor wrote that the word liberty from the statement no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, (the delinquentProcess Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) includes a womans remunerate to an abortion. Thus, the precedent decision made in the case Roe v. Wade that deals with the ripe(p)s to and restrictions on abortion still stands.Justices William Rehnquist and Atonin Scalia each wrote dissenting opinions about this case. In Rehnquists dissenting opinion, his main point upon which he disagrees with OConnor is that the right to an abortion is not fundamental. By this statement Rehnquist means that the word liberty in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not encompass the right to an abortion because the right to an abortion is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Thus, he does not agree with the majority opinion. Scalia disagreed with OConnor and the majority about roughly the same point Rehnquist described in his dissenting opinion. The difference in Scalias opinion is that he believes there is no question that the right to an abortion is a liberty, but he states that it is not a liberty that is protected by the Constitution. extinct of these three justices, Sandra Day OConnor would most agree with Tribe and Dorfs essay about how to read and interpret the Constitution. I believe she would be in agreement with them because unlike Rehnquist and Scalia, it seems that she interpreted the Constitution not by what she thought the framers originally meant, but by what she thought would do some good in the future. She also made it clear in her typography that the decision by the majority was not made based on the justices personal beliefs. She shows this in the majority opinion she wrote, the stronger argument is for affirming Roes central holding, with whatever degree of personal reluctance any of us may have, not for overruling it.