There was an interesting article about the Constitution and

There was an interesting article about the Constitution and its importance in the July 4, 2011 issue of Time magazine titled \"Does it still Matter?\" One of the issues in the article discussed how the Constitution is to be interpreted. One school of thought says that we should always interpret the Constitution under the circumstances of its origin (Justice Scalia who recently passed away was an originalist). Another school of thought views it as a living and transformative document that should be interpreted based on the current times. Where do you stand? Explain substantively. This was a huge issue in the recent confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch. The same interpretive logic has and will come into play as the courts continue to wrestle with the meaning of the word \"sex\" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Solution

I belong to the Originalism school of thought which reduces the possibility for unelected judges to take advantage of the opportunity and sieze power from the hands of elected representatives. It helps to preserve the court\'s authority and does not allow too much of subjective views to be imposed. It allows neutral and objective criteria for the purpose of decision making. It promotes and respects the condition and its idea as a binding contract. It also provides space for legislatures to reconsider and make amendments wherever needed.

It looks at Constitution as law and its meaning. It is necessary that it\'s meaning should be considered as binding by the judges and lawmakers. The originalist view does not let new laws to be creates and old ones to be destroyed. If acted that way then it violates the limitations of the authority.