There has been a lot of fuss lately about two approaches to Constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court. "Original intent" supporters think the justices should transport themselves back in time to the moment when the law at issue was ratified and enforce it as it would have been enforced at that time. "Living Constitution" proponents argue that laws need to be interpreted to fit changing times. Law Review articles have been written. Pundits have bickered. Hot words have been exchanged.
How unnecessary. The issue has apparently been settled all the time: the Living Constitution approach is the Court’s policy. From a document titled The Court and Constitutional Interpretation posted on the Supreme Court’s official website:
"The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of judicial review has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a living Constitution whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations" [original emphasis].
