Debate on Whether the Constitution Should Narrowly or Broadly be Interpreted - Essay Example

Constitutional Interpretation University’s Name: Submitted by Names Tutor: Date: Introduction There is an endless debate on whether the constitution should narrowly or broadly interpreted. The proponents of narrow interpretation believe that what is written in the constitution should be final, and that the words in the constitution cannot mean any other thing rather than their literal meanings. They also believe that the judges have no authority to many any inference of anything that is not documented in the constitution.1 The proponents of broad interpretation of constitution, on the other hand, argue that the constitution should be interpreted based on the situation and not necessarily the exact words that are documented in the constitution.1 The paper, therefore, analyzes both sides of arguments to determine a better way of interpreting the constitution. Broad Interpretation The primary roles of any constitution are to protect the rights of the people and to solve any conflict that is likely to arise in the society. One of the democratic requirements of any society is that judges should only the law passes by the majority the way it is without altering it or any inference. The argument may hold some waters, but in real sense, the constitution is not made by the majority or their representative, but a few legal experts. Therefore, a few experts drafting the constitutions may not have the ability to capture the interest of all people and the situation that are likely to occur in the society.1 The society is dynamic and it is experiencing a number of changes. Therefore, in order to adapt to the changes in the society, it is necessary to broadly interpret the constitution because it captures contemporary context. The broad interpretation of constitution, to a larger extend, is in line with its wordings and structure. The people who are against the broad interpretation of the constitution tend to forget that it is a short document that is only used as a guidance and reference, which therefore cannot be strictly applied in all the situations because it is unrealistic.2 The majority of the phrases and words in the constitution are vague, which require some form of interpretation to make sense in the context in which they are applied.2 For instance, words like due process and equal protections have been interpreted differently by different legal scholars in different situations. Therefore, the constitution is open to a broad interpretation to serve its intended purpose of ensuring justice to every member of the society. It is also important to note that even the people who wrote the constitution used general language and wording because they knew that the constitution is a long-term document that is meant to live for many years. There is no constitution in the world that specifies how the government and judges should handle all the situations. The drafters of constitution have no ability to anticipate and foresee all the situations that are likely to occur.3 Therefore, in order to ensure that the constitution address all the situations, they use general languages that are open to interpretation. The constitution, therefore, cannot be strictly applied as per the original wordings. In addition, the proponents of narrow interpretation should recognize the fact that the constitution is a political document that is associated with a lot of political interests. The broad interpretation of the constitution, therefore, leads to politically neutral legal decisions, which is important in ensuring a long-term and sustainable peace in a society.3 Even though the supports of narrow interpretation of the constitution argue that strict interpretation enhances the depoliticization of the justice system, the significant role of politics and political leaders in the society cannot be ignored. The constitution should ensure justice to all and it should also solve the conflicts that are inevitable in every society.4 In addition, broad interpretation can be applied in many contexts, which may make it relatively hard for the judges to engage in politics or champion for a particular political agenda. Narrow interpretation makes it hard for judges to make rational decisions because of a few options that are available, which may interfere with the rationality, impartiality, and objectivity of the judicial decisions.4 Finally, broad interpretation is important because it ensures that those implementing the constitution show some respect to the founders of the constitution, who made it a general document that was meant to serve its purpose for many years.5 The constitution risk being irrelevant and obsolete if not broadly interpreted because of the social, political, and economic changes that are inevitable. The most important thing is that the constitution is applied according to its principles in a faithful manner by addressing the political, social, and economic context to solve any challenge in the society. Therefore, broad interpretation of the constitution comes with many advantages. Further, the broad interpretation of the constitution is supported by both golden rule and mischief rule of statutory interpretation. The golden rule states that judges should first consider the literal meaning of the constitution, but in case there is absurdity in the literal meaning, the original sense of the words or phrases in the constitution can be modified to be in line with the context or situation. The mischief rule also supports the broad interpretation of the constitution because it gives judges opportunities to determine the intention of the legislatures and the drafters of the constitution to solve a particular judicial issue. The broad interpretation, therefore, is supported with some of the rules of statutory interpretation. Narrow Interpretation There are a number of reasons why the proponents of narrow interpretation of constitution believe that is a better option compared to the broad interpretation. The supporters of the narrow interpretation believe that it ensures the predictability, certainty, and consistency in the interpretation of the constitution. In addition, they argue that shallow interpretation ensures that the constitution is efficient, effective, enhances equality while at the same time reduces judicial errors.6 Narrow interpretation can be traced back in the birth of the constitution, and despite the debate about its sustainability and applicability in the modern society, there are still a number of legal scholars who still believe that it is a better option in comparison to broad interpretation due to some of its fundamental advantages. One of the major arguments for the support of the narrow interpretation is that it is the best option of ensuring the certainty, predictability, and consistency when it comes to constitutional interpretation and applicability.6 In order to effectively apply the constitution, it constitution should be certain and predictable. The certainty and predictability of the interpretation of the constitution is important in the legal system for justice and fairness to prevail because it ensures the behavioral guidelines. The predictability and consistency is also important because it ensure that judges and the legal experts and professionals to act within the legal requirements and not according to their opinions and personal judgment. At the same time consistency in the interpretation of the law is advantageous because it ensures that the legal requirements are not changes to suite personal interests instead of justice. Narrow interpretation of the constitution is also associated with the efficiency and impartiality in the legal system. Narrow interpretation is time-saving because judges do not have to spend a lot of time in interpreting the meaning of a word or a phrase in a constitution. Consequently, it discourages the judges from expressing their own opinions, which may interfere with the justice. Narrow interpretation also ensures equality in the application of the constitution because it ensures that similar contexts get similar legal treatment irrespective of the parties and institutions involved.7 Therefore, narrow interpretation of the constitution ensures rationality, impartiality, efficiency, and fairness in the application of the constitution because it prevents judges and constitution-making bodies from expressing their personal opinions and serving their own interests. In addition, the narrow interpretation also reduces some of the possible judicial errors that are likely to occur in the case of broad interpretation of the constitution. When a constitution is subjected to a broad interpretation, the judges will have the liberty to express their opinions, which are subject to errors because they are also human beings who are prone to making mistakes. The strict adherence to the words and phrases in the constitution make judges to take a lot of precautions when making judicial decisions because they can easy be held accountable. Therefore, narrow interpretation enhances the accountability in the judicial system, which is important in ensuring that justice prevails to all in the society regardless of the status. Despite the many advantages that narrow interpretation of the constitution has, many legal scholars believe that it does to apply to the current contexts due to the many changes that take place in the society. Therefore, the main argument against narrow interpretation is its rigidity, which is likely to render the constitution irrelevant and obsolete. The constitution does not spell out all the situations that occur in the society and that is why it is always written in general language.8 However, the narrow interpretation does not allow flexibility, which may hinder appropriate application of the constitution. Consequently, the narrow application of the constitution is challenging, especially in the dynamic world characterized by many changes. Conclusion There is still a controversial debate about broad and narrow interpretation of the constitution. However, broad interpretation seems to be sustainable due to the inevitable changes that take place in the society and the general language that is used in drafting the constitution. Despite the facts that narrow interpretation comes with many advantages, it is not adaptive to the social, political and economic changes that take place in the society. Even though broad interpretation is a better option, it must adhere to the spirit and principles of the constitution to ensure justice to all people. Bibliography Dal Pont, Gino. "Lawyers' professional responsibility in Australia and New Zealand." (2001). Dal Pont, Gino. "Lawyers' Professional Responsibility." (2010). Kostritsky, Juliet P. "Plain Meaning vs. Broad Interpretation: How the Risk of Opportunism Defeats a Unitary Default Rule for Interpretation." Ky. LJ 96 (2007): 43. Latimer, Paul. Australian Business Law 2012. CCH Australia Limited, 2012. Parker, Christine, and Adrian Evans. Inside lawyers' ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2013. Ross, Ysaiah. Ethics in law: Lawyers' responsibility and accountability in Australia. Butterworths, 2014. Read More