Revision & Exam Practice for the “legacy” A Level qualifications including:

• Edexcel (Unit 3C – Representative Processes in the USA, Unit 4C – Governing the USA)
• AQA (Unit 3A – The Politics of the USA, Unit 4A – The Government of the USA)
• OCR (F855 – US Government & Politics)

REVISE THE US SUPREME COURT

How to use these questions for revision and exam practice:

1. For long-answer or essay questions, plan a 4 paragraph response using the PEEACH paragraph structure (P=point, E=evidence, E=explain, A=argument, C=counter argument, H=how does this answer the question?)
2. Once you have completed your question, read the indicative content.
3. Using the essay criteria, colour code each criteria to show how successful you were at including this in your essay (red, amber or green)
4. There is also a space for you to add additional notes and/or examples that don’t appear in the indicative content, or add better explanations, or include additional, points from the indicative content.

 ‘The Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution and its amendments by establishing their original meaning when they were adopted.’ Discuss. (45)

Indicative Content

There are a number of schools of judicial interpretation which are linked by a belief in the importance of the original meaning of the text itself. ‘Strict constructionism’ and ‘originalism’ are among the two best known: the former emphasises the literal meaning of the text, the latter, whose best known exponent is Antonin Scalia, seeks to establish what a ‘reasonable’ reading contemporary to the adoption would have been.

Arguments for interpreting the constitution in this way include:

• the constitution is law: every other law is ‘dead’ and doesn’t change its meaning over time; if anything, as a statement of fundamental principles, there is more reason to keep the constitution unchanged
• it is the most objective standard available – a ‘living constitution’ approach means that the constitution becomes a reflection of the values of the current justices
• it makes the court’s judgments more predictable and stable
• the amendment process is available if society’s values change
• rights which judges ‘find’ in the text are likely to be seen to lack legitimacy

Arguments against this approach include:

• the constitution was written in broad terms as the framers themselves envisaged the need for it to evolve
• the framers misjudged the amendment process to the constitution; the requirement of 2/3 majorities in Congress, and approval by ¾ of the state legislatures is too demanding, so that it becomes the responsibility of the court to bring it up to date
• society’s values do change and no one would want the framers’ view of e.g. ‘cruel and unusual punishments’ to be applied today
• originalism as currently practised is not consistent – e.g. no ‘originalist’ justice is critical of the decision in Brown v Topeka Board, when there is every indication that the framers of the 14th amendment regarded it as consistent with segregated schools (see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10bar.html?_r=2&scp=2&s q=scalia&st=cse)