I.

Introduction
a.
b. Definition original intent: Interpreting the Constitution based on what the
framers intended when writing the document.
c. Definition literalism: Interpreting the Constitution on the meaning of the
words in the present day.
d. Definition original meaning: Interpreting the Constitution on the meaning
of the words when the framers wrote them.
e. Definition polls of other jurisdictions: Looking to other sources (laws) to
make decisions/ policies
f. Definition stare decisis: Using judicial precedent (past court cases) to
decided cases
g. Definition public opinion: Taking into account peoples opinions
h. Definition partisan politics: Part of a bigger political process, taking into
account other political players opinions (especially Congress and
president)
i. Definition interest groups: Specialty groups trying to promote specific/
specialized causes (biased groups).
j. Definition judicial role: What the justice feels is the appropriate role of
justicesactivism vs. restraint
k. Definition strategic approach: Recognizing that justices are part of a team
and considering other justices in decision
l. Definition judicial attitude: Decisions based on justices personal
ideologies
m. Definition pragmatism: Considering effects of decisioncost/benefit
analysis
n. Thesis:
i. Methods that allow the justices to reflect upon the past without
binding them to outdated procedures are extremely important in
the ruling process. Stare decisis and polls of other jurisdictions
both allow the justices to observe past decisions and policies and
decide whether the results would be applicable to the current
situation. Perhaps even more essential are the methods of
interpretation that allow for diversity of opinion and a fluidity that
keeps the Constitution applicable in the changing, such as judicial
attitude, pragmatism, and consideration of public opinion. The
world is very different world in 2015 than it was in 1787, and
anachronistic decision-making processes, such as the use of
original intent, original meaning, and literalism, are of absolutely
no use in the modern world. The United States Constitution has
survived for centuries because it is fluid and adaptableand
justices must continue using those flexible methods of interpreting
the document if it is going to govern our nation for centuries more.
ii.
iii. Diversifying opiniongood; best way to represent people in non-
democratic elected position
 iv. Fluid interpretation that can change with the timesgood
v. Hindsight not 20/20, but closeeasier to examine past than predict
future
vi. Constitution needs to be applicable to the modern world
II. Original Intent (maybe combine with the textualisms)
a. Topic Sentence: Original intent is an extremely flawed process by which
to interpret the Constitution; it binds justices to a time long past and laws
which may not be at all applicable to modern society.
b. Evidence in favor 1: The framers wrote the Constitution over 200 years
ago. Times change, and laws/ policies/ court proceedings need to take that
into account.
i. Analysis: Americas social, economic, and political situations and
needs have changed dramatically since 1787. An outdated
interpretation of the Constitution that is not applicable to the time
it is being applied in is no use at all. The correct response to a case
in 1787 might well not be an appropriate way at all to handle the
same case in 2015.
c. Evidence in favor 2: with nine people deciding the rights of 370 million
people, those nine justices need to have the freedom to make the decisions
that would affect those rights appropriately
i. Analysis
d. Counterargument 1: keeps consistency
i. Debunk: what is consistency in a changing world?
e. Counterargument 2: free of political bias
i. Debunk: political bias is not bad
III. Literalism (textualism) and Original meaning (textualism)
a. Topic Sentence: Both schools of textualism, original meaning and
literalism, are similarly outdated means of understanding the Constitution;
original meaning binds justices to the meaning of the words when they
were written, while literalism constrains judges to the modern meaning of
old words. Both methods enforce a rigidity that is unhealthy for the
success of the Constitution through time.
b. Evidence in favor 1: original meaning limits justices to
i. Analysis
c. Evidence in favor 2:
i. Analysis
d. Counterargument 1: less personal bias
i. Debunk:
e. Counterargument 2:
i. Debunk
IV. Polls of Other Jurisdictions and Stare Decisis
a. Topic Sentence:
b. Evidence in favor 1:
i. Analysis
c. Evidence in favor 2:
i. Analysis
 d. Counterargument 1:
i. Debunk:
e. Counterargument 2:
i. Debunk
V. Partisan Politics & Interest Groupsbad
a. Topic Sentence:
b. Evidence in favor 1:
i. Analysis
c. Evidence in favor 2:
i. Analysis
d. Counterargument 1:
i. Debunk:
e. Counterargument 2:
i. Debunk
VI. Judicial Role
a. Topic Sentence
VII. Strategic approachbad
a. Topic Sentence: While strategic approach does promote unity in the court,
it also dilutes the diversity of ideas that flavor a strong, broad, and fair
decision.
b. Evidence in favor 1: Takes the individualism and diversity of ideas out of
the decision
i. Analysis
c. Evidence in favor 2: More external pressure on individual justices
i. Analysis
d. Counterargument 1: promotes unity in the court. Marshall showed that
unity = authority
i. Debunk:
e. Counterargument 2:
i. Debunk
VIII. Judicial Attitude: good
a. Topic Sentence: Judicial attitude is a crucial part of a fair, representative
bench
b. Evidence in favor 1: apart from humanizing decision-making process
i. Analysis: making it more acceptable to people
c. Evidence in favor 2: Odds are, at any given time there will be multiple
ideologies represented, so there will be a diverse court opinion, hopefully
leading to a widely acceptable compromise
i. Analysis
d. Counterargument 1: too much power in non-elected officials?
i. Debunk:
e. Counterargument 2: politicizes process
f. Counterargument 3: lack of consistency
i. Debunk
IX. Public opinion
 a. Topic Sentence: On matters of social justice, in which the public can
confident on
X. Pragmatism
a. Topic Sentence: Along with the power to determine the rights of the
people of a nation comes the responsibility run a cost-benefit analysis and
consider how any given ruling will affect the public for years to come.
b. Evidence in favor 1:
i. Analysis
c. Evidence in favor 2:
i. Analysis
d. Counterargument 1:
i. Debunk:
e. Counterargument 2:
i. Debunk
XI. Conclusion