Critical Analysis of the Interpretation of the Constitution

Justice Brennan appreciates the analogies that exist amid judicial calling for interpreting the laws and reading legislation which in many instances regards the research and study of philosophical works and literary. In his speech, Justice Brennan is mindfully aware of the American and European philosophy of language, the theory of hermeneutics that comes along with the findings of Alexander Bickel and Lon Fuller (Brennan 2). The above personalities remain the critical thoughts of the Judge’s thinking together with his conclusions as a court judge. On the other hand, Scalia argues that strict adherence to the law of the land means providing for the firm ground, especially for court judgments. Justice Scalia emphasizes the importance of the founding principles of the country’s constitution, an aspect that the abled judge believes in promoting scholarship on constitutionalism and teaching.

He believes in binding legislation devoid of political undertones that do not promote healthy living. Justice Brennan believes that the heavy burden of responsibility needs to be traded with extreme caution to safeguard the gains of the country’s laws as enshrined in the constitution. Despite his dead analogy, Justice Scalia holds the view that the constitution as a guide to human relations and association remain the best legal aspect of binding humans (Scalia 6). This is despite his “cold” approach to the enduring school of thought. At the same time, Justice Brennan acknowledges that the country’s constitution remains the country’s secular scripture as emphasized by James Madison. According to Brennan, literalism would best be applied if and when it worked, giving forth formidable answers.

If the literal perspective has the answer, then it should form the starting and ending point. Brennan however, offers a false start on the same but in the philosophy of interpretation towards getting more meaning to fundamental concepts of the constitution. According to Brennan, taking on a different path from Scalia’s school of thought on reading the text, literalism is not helpful as compared to philosophical interpretation. Brennan is a clear prototype of a non-positivist judge while Scalia is the literalist judge. Scalia’s position and review are more inclined to fundamental respect to laws as made for man and not man for the law. Works Cited Brennan, William, Philosophy of Constitutional Interpretation, October 12, 1985, Text and Teaching Symposium, Georgetown University, New York: Georgetown University Press, Publisher, 1985.