Original Public Meaning Originalism vs. The "Common Law Living Constitution"

The “Great Debate” in constitutional law, one that has raged for over 200 years, is this: Should courts interpret the Constitution’s text as it would have been understood by ordinary citizens alive at the time the text was ratified? Or should judges interpret the Constitution as a common law, “living” organism, one meant to evolve to suit the changing needs and values of contemporary American society? 

Originalists believe that if the Constitution must evolve to keep pace with our constantly changing world, we should seek this change through the legitimate amendment process of Article V. Simply put: amendments should come from the people, not the Supreme Court.

However, proponents of a Living Constitution believe that the formal amendment process is too “cumbersome” to keep the Constitution current, and that necessity therefore requires the Supreme Court to preside over the "evolution" of the Constitution from the Bench. For example, if the written Commerce Clause does not give Congress sufficient power to deal with a global economy and contemporary problems such as the health care crisis, then it is the duty of the Court to recognize that the Constitution has evolved to meet our ever-changing political needs. After all, why should contemporary Americans be saddled with the views and philosophies of long-dead white males who had no understanding of the needs and values of America in 2018?

Here is what I would like you all to do for our zoom session. 

Think about the readings and your personal understanding of what it means to have a written Constitution, a Constitution that is the supreme law of the land and invalidates all federal and state laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution, and compile several lists as follows:

1. a list of at least 3 reasons why you support an originalist interpretation of the Constitution 

2.  a list of at least 3 reasons why you support a common law "living" interpretation of the Constitution

3. a list of three arguments against originalism

4. a list of three arguments against common law constitutionalism