List and define several approaches to constitutional interpretation. Discuss the pros and cons of the Supreme Court being the chief, if not the only, expositor of the Constitution and its interpretation. What types of constitutional interpretation were used in Scott v. Sandford? In Marbury v. Madison?
There are basically only two different approaches to constitutional interpretation with either interpreting the document as a living document or interpreting it as a literal document (word for word and basing the decisions and rules on the notion that the document should be used as the blueprint and is factual in its entirety). Those justices that interpret the document as a living document make their judicial decisions according to the climate of the times, therefore, when the populace or current social era is steeped in a certain way the justices take into account this climate when ruling as opposed to staunchly ruling according to the words of the founding fathers made centuries ago or years ago in some instances. Justices that interpret the document as a literal document strive to make sure that the tenets of the original document are followed to their core and make rulings in accordance with "what the founding fathers" would have wanted.
The pros and ...
This solution examines how the Supreme Court has interpreted case law in their decisions using the constitution as the blueprint. It primarily focuses on how two different schools of thought regarding the interpretation of the United States Constitution including "strict interpetation" and "the living document" have shaped different rulings throughout the history of the Court.