In the Supreme Court\'s decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2015, the d
ID: 1119938 • Letter: I
Question
In the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2015, the decision turned on how to read the Act itself, whether by the letter of the law as written, or whether the 'intent' of the lawmakers should be considered. Those who read the Act in such a way that only the actual words of the ACA were important voted against the Act, while those who took into consideration the legislative intent of Congress voted in favor of the ACA. Attached is a file with two brief newspaper articles that concern the interpretation of laws and the Constitution. They outline differing points of view. What are they? Do you find one more convincing than the other? Do you find one more problematic than the other?
Article 1) - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012203186.html
Article 2) - http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/17/nation/na-thomas17
Please state whether you find the arguments and beliefs of one side to be more persuasive than the other, and why. What might one interpretation mean for reading parts of the Constitution? Please try to elaborate and use examples to make your point clear.
Explanation / Answer
There is always a debate on the interpretation of the constitution or the laws,, whether to read the act with the letter or words itslef or to interpret the words based on the intentions of the law makers. The two articles clearly depicts the difference in the opinion of the both sides.
The different point of views opined in the artciles given are :
1) In the first article of washington post, the judges have literally taken the meaning of the letter and interpreted the law.
The muslim prisoner has lost his belongings and he sued the prison officers for the loss. Where he believes they intentionally misplaced the items while trafererring from one jail to another to harass the muslim prisoners.
The court has interpreted the federal law which has a word "any" - any law enforcement officer is barred from law suit, in case of missing of property. However some of the judges have interpreted (Justice Stephen G. Breyer ,) Kennedy's that any in the context means only the excise and customs personnels not the law enforcement officers work in prison.
here in the case majority of the judges have taken the literal meaning of the word "any" rather the context in which the law was made and the intention of the law makers.
Article 2:
Article of LA times offers a different perspective where the laws need to be interpreted to suit the intentions of the law makers. This has some pitfalls of its own.
For example: when judge Thomas interpreted the commerce in terms of 18 th century law, it only involves the inter state movement of goods. This interpretation can be harmful for the present economy and society. Because the economy has diversified immensely and the word commerce encompasses wages, employees etc..
So interpreting the laws based on the intent of law makers can some times be futile. Rather here there is a need to understand the law in the context of present day situation.
one more example is regarding the interpretation of the 1 st amendment. Thomas has provided a interesting interpreation of the argument of 1st amendment. The archiac laws are to be reinterpreted and the laws need to be seen in the present context . The same way many Constitutional scholars in the area of religion credit Thomas with reviving a historical and for now outdated view.
The pledge case need to be relooked and interpreted suiting the present conditions.
Opinion:
In both the cases it was felt that the laws need to be interpreted based on the intent of the law makers when the law is in concurrance with the values of constitution. When the law need to be interpreted in terms of letter, it need to be taken in broad sense which could benefit the individual interest. In order to protect the freedom, liberty and human dignity.
Both the cases have their own pitfalls. The laws need to be interpreted based on the uninversal values espoused in the U.S constitution. It should enhance Liberty, Equality and pursuit of happiness of an individual.