Chapter Review Summary
These questions need to be answered for the paper please.
1– Statement of the issue – one or two sentences.
2- Review of the authors arguments – one or two paragraphs stating at least three major
points made by each author.
3- Comparison of arguments – at least one paragraph contrasting what each author had to
4 – Your opinion – at least one paragraph explaining either
a) why you agree with one of another, or
b)why you disagree with all the authors.
5- Discussion Question – an open ended question that you derive from the readings.
This is the textbook name just in case you need to know or if you want to quote anything.
“The Enduring Debate (Norton, 2014)
CHAPTER REVIEW SUMMARY 2
Statement of the Issue
Constitution interpretation is done in the old fashioned way as evident where the court
came to a controversial decision in the Roper Case, proving to be the statement of the issue
(Canon, Colenman & Mayer, 2014). This case happened on the ground where one person is
defending the opinion on the ground that people ought not to be subjected to greater
punishment like; capital punishment.
Antonin Scalia doesn’t think that the Constitution should be interpreted in a strict
manner or either sloppily. It should be interpreted in a more reasonable manner. Many of the
interpreters do not deserve the description strickt and he believes that the text is given the
meaning it had if it is well adopted in the right manner. In the modern position, this happens
to be opposite as questions are asked as though it is some affliction that seizes people (Canon,
Colenman & Mayer, 2014). According to the author, when a constitution changes, it doesn’t
need to be given an expansive meaning, rather it is given whatever meaning is needed so as to
CHAPTER REVIEW SUMMARY 3
make it simpler to be changed when future necessities arise. John Marshall explained that we
have to know that it is the constitution we are expounding, thus, it has to be given an
expansive meaning. The reason behind all this is to help accommodate events that a person is
familiar with and which will happen in the future.
Comparison of Authors Arguments
Antonin Scalia talked about how the constitution is a big difference that one could not
lie about it. There is no need for a lawyer to make a person understand it (Canon, Colenman
& Mayer, 2014). The constitution is a living morph and a person can’t contrast it that first.
John Marshall talks of ways that the constitutions use to guarantee the right to represent by
counsel and this did not mean that the state had all the mandate of paying for the counsel as
the Antonin Scalia stated. John Marshall stated that the constitution has a process named the
due process and it mostly states that no person can be deprived off his life only where then
law is involved in the whole process. However, Antonin Scalia contradicts this statement by
saying that a person can lose everything in the court as his life, liberty and property are not
guaranteed in any way.
It is prudent to agree with the first author as he wanted the constitution to be
interpreted in a more reasonable manner. Increased sentences in the court as mentioned by
John Marshall meant that it didn’t have all the many trials, and this act violated the right to
trial by jury (Canon, Colenman & Mayer, 2014). A person will definitely disagree with
Black’s opinion that stated that the lesser are, better off than we are. On the other side, Burton
argued that designed to court and the districts courts are designed to work as the school board
and have the capacity to formulate the program for desegregation. It is right to disagree with
CHAPTER REVIEW SUMMARY 4
the political scientist named Robert Dahl, who viewed the court as a powerless tool that can
affect the course of national policy.
It is next to impossible to beat somebody with nobody. Such a phrase is categorized as
the principle of legal interpretation, which require to be well considered. Increased emphasis
which tends to be upon included the people’s rights and any active powers are highly valued.
In most cases, increased emphasis leads to a better constitutional law that helps in the
promotion of governmental solutions. The solutions are consistent with individual dignity
and all community needs.
Canon, D., Colenman, J., & Mayer, Kenneth. (2014). “The Enduring Debate.