The last topic brings us full circle to where class began – whether the Constitution is a “living document.”
Originalists like the late Antonin Scalia and current Justice Clarence Thomas say “no!” Their view is that
the Constitution should be strictly interpreted according to the intent of the framers. Doing otherwise, they
argue, just opens the door for any judge to make it up and substitute their own preferences for
constitutional law.
On the other side, there is a whole legion of mostly liberal Justices like RBG or the late William Brennan
who have argued that the Constitution must be interpreted as a living document for it is too dated and too
sparse to do otherwise.
Which side is right? Is either side more likely to render purely impartial justice or are both sides equally
likely to produce decisions that conform with their preferred outcomes? Why or why not
Sample Solution
