There are different ways that judges can interpret the constitution like originalism which is the principle or belief that the original intent of an author should be adhered to in later interpretations of a work. The original intent theory, which holds the interpretation of a written constitution is consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists. The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Justice Scalia was a staunch protector of free speech even though, interestingly enough Justice Scalia’s protectiveness of the First Amendment flowed more from his views on stare decisis and his respect for precedent, rather than his originalist approach to constitutional interpretation. As both Nadine Strossen and Floyd Abrams pointed out, modern First Amendment jurisprudence doesn’t flow naturally from originalism. Or as their fellow …show more content…
The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create a dynamic, "living"