Constitutional Interpretation Debate

Yes, but be careful when interpreting the bill of rights from a literal interpretation of the text. The actual meaning of the constitution as applied by the courts is what is legally binding (legal precedence under common law)[0], and there are numerous cases in which rights are applied differently for citizens and non-citizens.One can make the argument that the literal text of the constitution is "what the Founding Fathers meant", but one can also easily argue that since the Consti

As someone else already wrote, Constitutions tend to be reinterpreted - see all the controversies in US on several Amendments and the lack of meaning of "not infringe" these days.

Because the current 9 people, who are not at all in touch with either the original writers or the current population, get total say in what the Constitution actually says. It is just like the rulings that allowed obscenity exception to the first amendment, a fully automatic exception to the second amendment, or for the commerce clause to apply to a person growing food for their own animals to eat,Now, maybe in this case the 9 will claim it does require an amendment, but so many current excep

You may be interested in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism> Originalism is a method of constitutional and statutory interpretation. Originalists assert that legal text should be interpreted based on the original understanding at the time of adoption. Originalists object to the idea of the significant legal evolution being driven by judges in a common law framework and inst

Under this court's approach the interpretations of the constitution from around the time of adoption of it count as strong evidence for its meaning today. So this approach would not work for you.

He's talking about the Constitution. You're talking about the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, which is different (and could change.)

The situation in the US seems to suggest that trying to finely analyze the exact sequence of words in a law or the consitution still leaves a whole lot of room for arbitrary decisions. Abortion was a constitutional right until it wasn't and the constitution was not changed between.

That is what a strict originalist reading of the Constitution would conclude - the same reading that decided the Constitution doesn't support a right to privacy because the word "privacy" doesn't appear anywhere in the document, and that the Second Amendment can only be interpreted under the rules of 18th century English. Either we believe the Constitution is a living document and that the context of modern society matters in its interpretation, or we don't and that only

Agree. To extend your argument, we find that over the years that the application of the constitution has to be understood in new contexts. It doesn't evolve, but how it is understood to apply is discussed and what it covers does. That's why textualism/originalism is important: if we understand what someone said and why they said it, we can better represent the intention of the rule here, several hundred years later.

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is not limited to the words of the document. The Constitution itself is derived from a history of law, letters, and intent that predate the very concept of the United States.