Question

Judges, lawyers, politicians, and scholars have long debated theories of how our nation's Constitution should be understood and applied to the issues of our day. Originalists believe that the Constitution should be understood according to its political meaning. Others see the Constitution as a living document whose meaning evolves over time.

Who is right in this argument, and why?

Answer 1

In my opinion, the individuals who believe that Constitution as a living document whose meaning evolves over time are having the appropriate opinion. This is due to the fact that constitution provides the guidelines of how the nation will be governed under specific circumstances or under the prevailing situation. There can be a lot of variation in the situation where the constitution was formed and when it is being cited for getting the help of resolving any issue. The constitution is a living document and it should be changed and in fact, it is being changed by the parliament or the Congress time to time so that it can accommodate the requirement of the current situation. The provisions and laws which were made earlier may be completely obsolete in a present scenario and thus some new norms and laws are formed old are revised or modified or abandoned. Thus, the constitution is a living phenomenon which changes as per the requirement of the current situation of the society and the country.