In this essay I will try to explain and critique the two dominant methods of constitutional interpretation. Which are originalism and non-originalism. I will do this by taking help from How to Read the Constitution by Christopher Wolfe, and different sources from Internet. I will start by giving what Wolfe says originalism is, and then I will give some background to other ways to interpret the constitution, and the founders and interpretation and I will finish up with my view on originalism and non-originalism and the critics to that.Wolfe on OriginalismWolfe says that originalism is a two-fold doctrine. First, it holds that the constitution is generally intelligible and with effort its meaning can be understood, its meaning is not simply and inevitable in the eye of the beholder. Second, it holds that in the absence of a clear meaning- since language cannot be perfect and the framers did not intend to provide rules for all possible future circumstances - the condition for the exercise of judicial review do not exist. The second aspect of originalism is derived from reflection on the foundations of judicial review. Judicial review is an implication of the constitution, fairly read, but it is an implication with a definite from: judges should prefer the constitution to act that is incompatible with it.The Founders and InterpretationChristopher Wolfe says that the difference of interpretation arise not from the application of different rules but from different conclusions drawn from applications of the same rules, he says that when he has this in his mind: The disagreement that quickly arose on important issues of interpretation that the appearance of general agreement on rules of interpretation was misleading. The method of asserting the objects, which are especially important to note in cases where the words bear more than one meaning, is to examine the subject the context, and the intentions of the person using the worlds.Cert...
