The appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court highlights the importance of how the Constitution is read by those on the court. How the Constitution is read effects the outcome of many decisions. In the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2015, the decision turned on how to read the Act itself, whether by the letter of the law as written, or whether the ‘intent’ of the lawmakers should be considered. Those who read the Act in such a way that only the actual words of the ACA were important voted against the Act, while those who took into consideration the legislative intent of Congress voted in favor of the ACA.

The appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court highlights the importance of how the Constitution is read by those on the court. How the Constitution is read effects the outcome of many decisions. In the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2015, the decision turned on how to read the Act itself, whether by the letter of the law as written, or whether the ‘intent’ of the lawmakers should be considered. Those who read the Act in such a way that only the actual words of the ACA were important voted against the Act, while those who took into consideration the legislative intent of Congress voted in favor of the ACA.

Attached is a file with two brief newspaper articles that concern the interpretation of laws and the Constitution.  They outline differing points of view.  What are they? Do you find one more convincing than the other?  Do you find one more problematic than the other?

Please state whether you find the arguments and beliefs of one side to be more persuasive than the other, and why.  What might one interpretation mean for reading parts of the Constitution? Please try to elaborate and use examples to make your point clear. The length would be about 350 words.