answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

1. The plain meaning of the words in the Constitution Adv. The court can base its decisions closest to how the Framers meant the Constitution to be interpreted. Dis. Not all questions are answered in the Constitution and there were disagreements on some meanings of words. 2. The intention of the framers Adv. It is most faithful to the ideas of the Constitution. Dis. It was really hard to determine what the Framers meant on some issues. There are no guidelines for the types of situations that did not exist when the Constitution was written. 3. The Constitution is based on some fundamental principles of government Adv. Uses the basic ideas of our government on basic principles and values. 4. Today's social values and needs Adv. They use more modern approaches that fit to our current culture. Dis. People opposed to methods 3 and 4 say that it gives the justices too much freedom to decide cases according to their own political and personal beliefs.

User Avatar

Wiki User

9y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What are the four methods that justices might use to interpret the constitution and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each method?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

What laws govern a Supreme Court Justice and Justices' decisions?

The Supreme Court Justices interpret and enforce the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the ultimate "Law of the Land", to which they are bound.


Can the president amend the US Constitution.?

No. The president has no direct part in amending the Constitution. He can lobby for Constitutional changes and if given the opportunity, can nominate Supreme Court justices who may interpret the Constitution in ways that amount that amount to changes.


What is a constitutional provision the supports that the Constitution should be flexible?

There isn't one. Article 3 of the US Constitution enables the judiciary to interpret laws. That's why you have so many Justices in the Supreme Court who have varying views on how to interpret the Constitution. For example, Justice Scalia is known to be one who thinks the Constitution isn't flexible, while Ginsberg is generally for flexibility.


Can all three branches of government interpret the constitution differently?

Absolutely. Even US Supreme Court justices disagree with each other's interpretation of the Constitution, which is why there are seldom unanimous votes.While the President and members of Congress may disagree with certain Supreme Court decisions, the justices are the final arbiters of the Constitution. The other branches of government must abide by the Court's opinions.


What are the duties of the Supreme Court?

judges if laws and acts of the legislative and executive branches are constitutional


Justices in which court are appointed for life?

The Supreme Court sit for life. The thinking on this was they would be free of political restrictions and policies to be able to interpret law according to the constitution.


How many justices are on the highest court in the US according to the Constitution?

The Constitution does not mention the number of justices.


What is the term when courts use social norms to interpret the constitution and present laws?

The interpretive theory is known as contextualism, but judges or justices who are proponents of contextualism (and/or a Living Constitution) are often also accused of being judicial activists.


Supreme Court justices who support judicial activism and those who support judicial restraint most disagree on the answer to which question?

How important is the original intent of the Constitution when deciding cases? -Apex


What are the advantages and disadvantages of judges?

The biggest advantage to electing judges and justices is that they would be accountable to the people. However, the disadvantage would be subjecting them to political influence and pressure.


Prefer justices who will interpret the law in a strict constructionist manner.?

Conservatives


Who prefer justices who will interpret the law in a strict constructionist manner?

Conservatives