Justification and Weaknesses of the Non-Interpretive Model
             Brief: Justification and Weaknesses of the Non-Interpretive Model The
             question of Constitutional interpretation still has yet to be resolved.
             Should only the explicit commands of our nation's Founding Fathers be
             referenced in courts of law, or can it be justified that an outside body
             should extrapolate from the specific text of the Constitution to define
             and defend additional fundamental rights? Further, if this body, namely
             the Supreme Court, bases its decisions of constitutional relevance not
             wholly on exact interpretation, then regardless of reason, are they
             wholly illegitimate? The non-interpretive model allows the Court to
             interpret beyond the exact wording of the Constitution to define and
             protect the values of a society. The question of how the
             non-interpretative model can be justified must be answered. Despite
             much remaining confusion between the two models, it is clear that
             history has chosen the non-interpretative model without which many of
             the defining points in our nation's history would be unjustified. The
             overwhelming strength of the non-interpretive model is that it has
             allowed for many fundamental decisions that have served to protect
             the natural rights of the members of this society. If on the other hand
             the interpretive model is to be accepted, a significant number of
             decisions must be revoked. Briefly, the majority of the due process
             clause is no longer...