Can someone please help me with this homework problem? I would really appreciate the help!

Question

Question:

A justice writes: “I am not sure of the original intent of the Constitution’s framers, but my decision is based solely on the actual words of the Constitution.” Which best describes that position?

Options:

A. Originalism

B. Textualism

C. Activism

D. Stare Decisis

Would B. Textualism be the correct answer?

Answer 1

Yes, you are correct. Originalism would have to address intent. Activism is people selectively reinterpreting and bending to make it fit an already defined opinion. Stare Decisis is the basis concept of our legal system of precedents where prior case law is presumed to be accumulated wisdom not subject to easy or spurious disposal and that the precedent legal reasoning that was used is presumed to be unchanged and still valid.

Answer 2

B Textualism is Correct

If the statutory language is not ambiguous, if the words are clear, the justices go with the text.

if the text is unclear, ambiguous, that opens the door to conservative justices reverting to original intent as the solution. Or for liberal activist justices to read into the stature what they believe the authors would have intended had they lived today. Or they discover new law that fits their just policies, as in substantive due process, fundamental fairness. The activists see the Constitution as a living document. Stare decisis just following precedent, which can be a liberal or conservative view.