Different Approaches to Interpreting the Constitution
Viewers will get firsthand perspectives on how the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means when they watch a 37-minute conversation among Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen G. Breyer, and a group of high school students. The taped discussion and follow-up discussion questions explore different theories of judicial interpretation and how they affect not only the outcomes of cases but democracy and daily life.
The Supreme Court's annual Conversation on the Constitution is an anticipated part the observance of Constitution Day and Citizenship Day every September 17. However, the topics are timeless and tie in with social studies standards. High school American Government teachers may contact their local federal court to request a viewing and discussion with a Federal Judge for the September 17 national observance, or anytime during the school year. The program is:
- A streaming video on the federal courts' web site, supported by a pool of original, courtroom/classroom-ready handouts and discussion activities. Videos on the Educational Resources pages can be shown on a large screen by connecting a laptop computer to a television monitor.
The Interpreting the Constitution video is part of a series produced by The Sunnylands Constitution Project and made possible by The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands.
Judicial Interpretation Discussion Topics
These one-page handouts prepare students to discuss the following topics:
Inquiring Minds Want to Know
These questions draw on students' understanding of the video and help them form their own views.
- What are the two, basic approaches to interpreting the Constitution mentioned by the Justices?
-
How would Justice Scalia describe both approaches?
-
How would Justice Breyer describe both approaches?
-
What distinctions did the Justices make between the two approaches?
-
How would an Originalist change the Constitution?
-
How would an Evolutionist change the Constitution?
-
Which of the framers did Justice Breyer call upon to support his approach?
-
Which of the framers did Justice Scalia call upon to support his approach?
-
Which approach was described as patrolling the borders, or protecting the boundaries of the Constitution?
-
Which approach was described as relying more heavily on its understanding of the intention of the Framers?
-
Which approach was called a values-laden approach?
-
Justice Breyer offered six criteria that he believes should be considered when interpreting the Constitution. What are they and what does each mean?
-
Upon which of these considerations would Originalists be more likely to put weight?
-
Which considerations would Evolutionists add to that list?
-
Where do these criteria overlap when viewed from the standpoint of each approach?
-
Which of these criteria would be most important to you in deciding a case? Why?
-
In your own words, compare Evolutionists with Originalists.
-
Do you see yourself as an Evolutionist or an Originalist? Why?
-
Where could you find common ground with the other approach? Where would it be difficult to compromise?
-
What does a diversity of approaches bring to the Supreme Court's decision-making process?