DworkinThe determination of the original meaning is left to the people to whom the statute is addressed. The people’s defined original meaning regards the people’s understanding of a given statute and uniquely distinguishes itself from the contradictory will of the legislatures. Professor Dworkin contradicts Scalia in his argument that the intention of the authors of the statute plays a crucial role in the determination of the statute’s meaning. Like Dworkin, Scalia argues that his interpretation technique should be applied in the interpretation of the United States Constitution with the best application example being the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on extraordinary and cruel punishment. However, Dworkin’s argument concludes that the law expression goes beyond understanding a system of grammar and words to include seeking for the original intention of the Constitutional authors, thus making the constitution the supreme law of the land.Despite divergent views on Originalism, Dworkin and Scalia acknowledge the judicial role in constitutional interpretation. On these grounds, the two conquer that judges should put into account the past decisions by courts during their determination of the law (Post amp. Siegel, 2006, p. 545). In addition, the two believe in the courts as legal institutions lack any permissions to define new laws.The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the manner in which the integrity of the US constitutional republic relies on devotion to the constitution in its original writing.