Question

What do you mean by interpretation of constitution? Discuss the role of judiciary in interpretation the constitution

Answer 1

Answer:

Explanation:Textualism. Textualism is a mode of interpretation that focuses on the plain meaning of the text

of a legal document. Textualism usually emphasizes how the terms in the Constitution would be

understood by people at the time they were ratified, as well as the context in which those terms

appear. Textualists usually believe there is an objective meaning of the text, and they do not

typically inquire into questions regarding the intent of the drafters, adopters, or ratifiers of the

Constitution and its amendments when deriving meaning from the text.

Original Meaning. Whereas textualist approaches to constitutional interpretation focus solely on

the text of the document, originalist approaches consider the meaning of the Constitution as

understood by at least some segment of the populace at the time of the Founding. Originalists

generally agree that the Constitution’s text had an “objectively identifiable” or public meaning at

the time of the Founding that has not changed over time, and the task of judges and Justices (and

other responsible interpreters) is to construct this original meaning.

Judicial Precedent. The most commonly cited source of constitutional meaning is the Supreme

Court’s prior decisions on questions of constitutional law. For most, if not all Justices, judicial

precedent provides possible principles, rules, or standards to govern judicial decisions in future

cases with arguably similar facts.

Pragmatism. Pragmatist approaches often involve the Court weighing or balancing the probable

practical consequences of one interpretation of the Constitution against other interpretations. One

flavor of pragmatism weighs the future costs and benefits of an interpretation to society or the

political branches, selecting the interpretation that may lead to the perceived best outcome. Under

another type of pragmatist approach, a court might consider the extent to which the judiciary

could play a constructive role in deciding a question of constitutional law.