The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the land, but is its originalism making America unsafe? This is the question addressed in a recent article published in the Washington Post. The article takes a deep dive into the concept of originalism and its implications for the United States.
Originalism is an interpretation of the Constitution that adheres to the literal meaning of its text as it was originally written. This interpretation is favored by many conservative justices on the Supreme Court. The article argues that this interpretation is outdated and has led to dangerous decisions that have weakened the safety of the nation.
The article cites the Heller case as an example of the dangers of originalism. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own firearms, overturning a long-standing ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. The article argues that this decision has made the nation more dangerous, as it has allowed for an increase in gun violence.
The article also cites other cases where the Supreme Court has used originalism to make decisions that have weakened the safety of the nation. These cases include the Citizens United case, which allowed for unlimited corporate spending in elections, and the Shelby County case, which weakened the Voting Rights Act. In both cases, the Court used an outdated interpretation of the Constitution to make decisions that have weakened the safety of the nation.
The article concludes by arguing that the Supreme Court should move away from originalism and towards an interpretation of the Constitution that takes into account the modern context. This would ensure that the Court is making decisions that are in line with the values of the nation and that are keeping the nation safe.
Originalism has been a favored interpretation of the Constitution by many conservative justices on the Supreme Court, but the recent article published in the Washington Post argues that this interpretation is outdated and is making the nation less safe. By citing multiple cases where originalism has been used to weaken the safety of the nation, the article argues that the Court should move away from originalism and towards a more modern interpretation of the Constitution.