Originalism in American Constitutional Interpretation:Origin,Development,Reasons for Adoption and Limits

Nowadays in the United States of America,constitutional interpretation divides into two rival theories:originalism and living constitutionalism.Despite sustained criticism that has discredited originalists within certain comers of the legal academy,the originalism movement is a success by numerous measures.[1]There is always a necessity to do thorough research on the originalism theory playing a dominant role in American constitutional interpretation.In order to demonstrate the importance of adhering to original meaning of the Constitution as it is always done and ought to be done,this article is going to focus on the originalist aspects and discuss what originalism is,why constitutional interpreters need to be faithful to it and how to soberly treat it and improve it after discovering the limits of the theory.

Principles,Standards,and Applicability of Constitutional Interpretation of Basic Rights

Abstract:For departmental legal norms concerning citizens’basic rights,when multiple interpretations are possible based on indi-vidual case circumstances,interpreters representing public authority need to apply the method of constitutional interpretation to screen out the interpretation conclusions that do not violate the Constitution.This means selecting interpretations at the constitutional level that do not overly restrict citizens’basic rights and understanding the specific connotations of legal norms with the principle of“not infringing on citizens’basic rights.”The Constitution,as a framework order,does not require interpreters to choose the most constitutionally aligned interpretation among various constitutional interpretations.If a legal norm does not have a constitutional interpretation conclusion in an individual case circumstance,it indicates that the application of that norm in the case is unconstitutional,and the interpreter should avoid applying the legal norm in that case.Regarding judgment standards,interpreters should apply the principle of proportionality to deter-mine whether each legal interpretation conclusion concerning basic rights-related legal norms complies with the Constitution.Out of respect for the legislature,the application of the sub-principles of pro-portionality should consider the boundaries of interpretative actions.

On the Right to the Protection of Personal Data as a Constitutional Right

The right to the protection of personal data is an important human right in the era of big data and a constitutional right based on the national protection obligation and the theory of human dignity,making it of special significance for the realization of citizenship in a digital society.It can be seen from an examination of the constitutional texts of various countries in the world that the right to the protection of personal data as a constitutional right has rich normative connotations,and the key legal link to realize this right lies in the national legislature actively fulfilling its obligation to shape and specify the protection of personal data in accordance with the entrustment of the constitutional norms.Given the constitutional principles of fundamental rights protection,i.e.,realizing the constitutional status of the right to the protection of personal data as a basic right by means of institutional guarantees,the legislature should first adhere to the constitutionality principle of data protection legislation.Second,a multi-level data protection legal system centered on the right to the protection of personal data should be established.Finally,the institutional guarantee mechanism for the protection of personal data should be continuously improved through constitutional interpretation.