Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation

Introduction

Location: Leo Rich Theater, Tucson, Arizona.
Presented by: Rehnquist Center of the James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona.
Featured Guests: U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer.
Host: NBC News Justice Correspondent, Pete Williams.

Scalia's View: Consistency is key; judicial philosophy guides interpretation and application of law.
Breyer's View: Judges follow rules and interpret cases through these rules; consistency develops over time.
General Consensus: Judicial philosophy offers a framework for decision-making and ensures consistency across cases.

Scalia: Interprets laws based on what they meant at the time they were written (originalism).
- Believes the Eighth Amendment's meaning is fixed since 1791.
- Emphasizes the historical acceptance of the death penalty for juveniles post-age of reason.
Breyer: Considers the application of constitutional values in contemporary context.
- Views laws like "cruel and unusual punishment" as embodying values rather than specific historical circumstances.
- Argues for interpreting evolving standards of decency.

Scalia: Argues against the evolving interpretation of Constitution.
- Supports sticking to original meanings to avoid subjective judiciary decisions.
- Believes changes should be legislated, not judicially mandated.
Breyer: Emphasizes understanding values and purpose of constitutional provisions.
- Sees the need to apply historical intentions to modern circumstances.

Scalia on Criminal Law: Emphasizes historical understanding of trial rights and legal procedures.
- Criticizes evolving interpretations that diverge from original meanings.
Breyer on Application of Values: Discusses how interpretation should consider underlying values and intentions.

Scalia: Focuses on historical context and common understanding at the time of the Second Amendment.
Breyer: Considers the purpose behind the amendment and applies it to modern circumstances.

Affirmative Action Debate:
- Scalia: Advocates for colorblind interpretation as per the text of Equal Protection Clause.
- Breyer: Supports consideration of societal needs and objectives of inclusivity in interpretation.

Scalia: Stresses adherence to original text to maintain democratic principles.
Breyer: Believes in balancing historical intent with modern realities and values.

Breyer: Argues that law incorporates moral values, especially in criminal law.
Scalia: Maintains that moral values have no place in constitutional interpretation.

Debate highlights the fundamental and philosophical differences between originalism and the living Constitution approach.
Justices emphasize the complexity and importance of judicial philosophy in interpreting the Constitution.