Judicial Philosophies Law Essay Research Paper Coursework

Discussion topic
One concept that we haven't yet discussed is judicial philosophy, which is the lens through which judges and other legal professionals look at law and the Constitution.
There are two major judicial philosophies in the United States: Originalism and Evolutionism (or Living Constitutionalism).
Originalists argue that the Constitution is a "static" document, meaning that it doesn't change or evolve in meaning. The late justice, Antonin Scalia was the most outspoken legal scholar in support of this view. Originalists use "original intent" when interpreting the Constitution, meaning that one should understand the Constitution the same way that the people who drafted it and amended it. For example, when considering the Second Amendment, which deals with the right to keep and bear arms, an originalist would consider the historical context of the adoption of that amendment in 1791, when interpreting current gun laws. (In this example, the Supreme Court decided in 2008 that owning a gun is an individual right based on originalist arguments that in 1791, that was the intent of the framers of the Second Amendment for every American citizen to have this right.)
Evolutionists argue that as our society changes over time to include more people, the Constitution grows to include more people. Also, that we should view the Constitution through a contemporary lens. For example, an evolutionist view of the Second Amendment might be that in 1791, there may have been good reason for every citizen to own a gun (for hunting and protection) but today, we don't have those same needs, so it may be okay for cities to outlaw gun ownership.
Another example of the differences between Originalists and Evolutionists is the 14th Amendment: The original intent of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, was to protect recently liberated enslaved people by granting citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., by guaranteeing due process, and by guaranteeing equal protection and treatment of government.
Originalists see the 14th Amendment as primarily applying to African Americans (because that was the original intent of the Amendment) and not applying to same-sex couples. Evolutionists see it as granting equal protection and treatment to everyone in the United States including same-sex couples, and it was recently used as justification for striking down laws preventing same-sex couples from getting married in all 50 states.
*************************************
Your discussion forum assignment is to watch this video in which Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer discuss both of these judicial philosophies. Include in your post which justice you agree more with and why.
Also, it is important that you understand two points that many people get wrong in understanding Originalism:
Antonin Scalia (the Originalist in the video) is NOT arguing that the Constitution should not change. His argument is simply that it is Congress' job to do so and not un-elected judges' responsibility.
Scalia also knows that technology changes as times change. He just doesn't think that judges should change laws or the Constitution to keep up with the times. He believes that Congress is there to make laws and to change laws, and that it is a judge's job to interpret law rather than change it.
The point is that your argument should not be something like, "I agree with Breyer because times change so the Constitution should change," or that "technology has changed, so we should also change our Constitution." Again, the argument is really about which branch of government should be changing law and the Constitution. Breyer is comfortable with courts taking on this role, and Scalia would rather that it were only Congress which would take on this role.
For full credit, your post must be at least 200 words long and is due by Friday night at midnight.
Your two responses must be at least 100 words long and are due by Friday night at midnight.
VIDEO TO WATCH:
https://www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=VGKgJdW55nc&feature=emb_title