You are required to watch one outside lecture or panel discussion on one of the topics from the course. For example, there are youtube videos about punishment or capital punishment or free speech that you could watch. There are also lots of lectures going on that I will post.

For example, here is one with Justices Scalia and Beyers

1- U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia & Stephen Breyer Conversation on the Constitution (2009)
( https://youtu.be/jmv5Tz7w5pk )

2- A conversation with Ruth Bader Ginsburg at HLS
( https://youtu.be/umvkXhtbbpk )

3- https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/death-penalty/

promo

1- I want you to describe what the talk was about and then evaluate it.
2- Were the arguments good ones,
3- where the issues you wished were addressed, and so on.

ANSWER

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia & Stephen Breyer Conversation on the Constitution (2009)

The video under evaluation is the U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia & Stephen Breyer Conversation on the Constitution (2009) (Scalia & Breyer, 2009). The participants” aim to discuss the various methods used in the interpretation of the Constitution. Discussing the various methods used to interpret the Constitution presents a critical issue to discuss, as the Constitution has been used to influence and describe measures of determining cases by the U.S. Supreme Court and shaping legal justice systems in a country. Both Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer are intellectuals of the Constitution, legal justice, constitutional role, and application in the courts and justice systems. (Scalia & Breyer, 2009) However, they differ in the methods of interpreting the Constitution. In line with this, this essay argues that a Rogerian argument style is applied where opposing opinions and views on constitutional interpretation are objectively presented, each participant backing their arguments using constitutional provisions and its application in various cases during different times, shows consistency, and persuasively address the goals I set.

The Constitution is a law-binding document of the government and the judicial practice, which shows the need to have adequate and comprehensive interpretation methods to prevent constraining citizens’ legal justice or restrain moral and value application (Murrill, 2018). In the talk, Justice Scalia is a conservative who argues in favor of originalism in interpreting the Constitution. He argues that there is no need to change the Constitution to achieve the flexibility to meet the modern needs and changes, as that is not the role of a constitution. Instead, if flexibility seeks to be achieved, legislative changes can be adopted, citing issues such as death sentence, segregation, or abortion. On the other hand, Justice Breyer is a liberal arguing for the flexibility, evolution, and adaptability of the Constitution, which he calls a “living constitution.” (Scalia & Breyer, 2009). He argues that if the words of a constitution are to be relevant in the contemporary world, the interpretation cannot be based on the 18^th century, but with the 21^st century issues and framework.

This is an example of Rogerian argument style showing two opposing sides being objectively presented with evidence from historical cases as reference points such as the Brown Case (Brown v Board of Education), constitutional laws on death sentence, and the Fourteenth, First, and Fourth Amendments. The Justices apply their reasoning in these cases to support their arguments, showing the Constitution’s role and violation of each view to the Constitution’s Provisions. A significant case of reference is the Brown case explaining issues of racial discrimination, slavery, and segregation, in which the two Justices interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently (Liptak, 2009). Justice Scalia argues that texts (Constitution) should be followed, stating, “No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.” (Scalia & Breyer, 2009)  (47:59). On the other hand, Justice Beyer argues that if the text is clear, it should be followed; however, it is unclear in most cases. Then, one should look at the values and purposes that drive and address society’s needs.

The arguments made are persuasive with adequate legal and policy proof from various provisions of the Constitution and their application in historical cases and social issues such as abortion laws, legislative history, militia laws, bill of rights, freedom of speech, racial discrimination, and homosexuality. Before listening to this talk, the goal was to know the different interpretation methods and what motivates each Justice’s reasoning. These objectives were met as I learned of originalism and the evolution of constitutional interpretation methods. The talk went further to show the applicability of moral values in judging and constitutional interpretation, which Justice Beyer explains persuasively using the example of authors, appliers, and users of criminal law (Scalia & Breyer, 2009) (55:21).

References

Liptak, A. (2009, November 9). From 19th-Century View, Desegregation Is a Test. The New York Times, p. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10bar.html.

Murrill, B. J. (2018). Modes of Constitutional Interpretation. Congressional Research Service, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45129.pdf.

Scalia, J. A., & Breyer, S. (2009, January https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmv5Tz7w5pk). U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia & Stephen Breyer Conversation on the Constitution (2009). (J. E. Rogers, Interviewer)