I believe that the arguments set forth by Justice Antonin Scalia are not very persuasive, at all. Justice Scalia believes in adhering to the same "original intent" to which the framers wrote the Constitution. I do not believe that this can be achieved and should not be attempted; because the United States are incredibly different then they were 217 years ago. To take a quote from Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr., "It is arrogant to pretend that from our vantage [point] we can gauge accurately the intent of the framers..." The country has changed, and still is changing. The Constitution was written for a "changing of the guard" era, if you will, and should change with the times itself. The actual "Original Intent" of the Framers of the constitution certainly has not changed, but the modern-day interpretation of the grand scheme of the original writing has. An example would be Supreme Court cases that were decided, and then overturned by different presidential appointees of the court twenty-five years down the road.
The view of "original intent" differs from one Justice to another. The view today is severely different then those views 25 years ago.
I do not believe that such an approach to the Constitution is feasible, due to the fact that none of Supreme Court Justices, nor any other United States citizen was alive during the drafting of our Constitution. The Framers did not leave behind any instruction manual or explanations of how they had intended the Constitution to be viewed. I believe it was supposed to be interpreted however the presiding Supreme Court Judges of the time see fit.
I do not believe that anything constrains the Supreme Court Justices' interpretation of the Constitution. Like earlier stated, it is up to the president appointed officials to...