WAYS TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION IN THE U.S. PRACTICE

Abstract

The article analyzes the concept and essence of the method of free interpretation of the norms of the U.S. Constitution: the reasons for the emergence of this method of interpretation of the law in the activities of the U.S. Supreme Court, the position of the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as domestic and foreign scientists on this issue; examples of decisions made by the Court using the method of free interpretation; the positive significance of the method of free interpretation of the U.S. Constitution in the law enforcement practice of the Supreme Court.

In exercising its power to review government actions' constitutionality, the Supreme Court relied on specific«methods» or «ways» of interpretation, that is, ways to clarify the specific meaning of a provision of the Constitution. This report broadly describes the most common ways of interpreting the Constitution, examines examples of Supreme Court decisions that demonstrate the use of these methods, and provides an overview of the various arguments supporting and against using such methods of interpreting the Constitution. The interpretation of the Constitution and its norms requires, in each particular case, careful consideration of the literal text of the interpreted provision and the history of its origin, its place in the system of the Constitution, its meaning, and purpose. Noting the need for an inevitable compromise between the stability of the law and social dynamism, representatives of sociological jurisprudence considered it possible to give the judge the right to decide whether to apply a particular rule of law or judicial precedent, including putting a new meaning in the text of the Constitution.

It is a way of interpretation that focuses on the simple meaning of a legal document's text. Textualism usually focuses on how the terms in the Constitution will be understood by people when they are ratified and on the context in which these terms appear. Technologists usually believe that a text has an objective meaning. They usually do not ask questions about the intentions of the drafters, adopters, or ratifiers of the Constitution and its amendments when they extract meaning from the text.