What is the difference between the "Living Constitution" and "Originalism" in constitutional interpretation?

What is the difference between the "Living Constitution" and "Originalism" in constitutional interpretation?

• A. Living Constitution argues meaning evolves with societal change; Originalism holds fixed meaning at founding.
• B. Living Constitution holds fixed meaning at founding; Originalism argues meaning evolves.
• C. Living Constitution argues for unchanged textual meaning; Originalism seeks evolving case law.
• D. Originalism argues that the Constitution should be interpreted only by empirical data.

Answer: (C)

Interpretation hinges on whether the meaning of constitutional text is treated as fixed at the founding or as something that can mature with society. The Living Constitution approach sees constitutional meaning as dynamic, allowing judges to take into account contemporary values, technology, and social norms when applying the guarantees to new situations. Originalism, by contrast, holds that the text’s meaning was fixed at the founding (often interpreted through the framers’ intent or the original public meaning) and should guide current decisions without being rewritten to fit modern values. Because of that, the Living Constitution tends to justify expanding or adapting rights as society changes, while Originalism emphasizes fidelity to the original meaning as the constraint on interpretation. The other descriptions invert or mix up these directions—for example, suggesting the Living Constitution keeps the meaning unchanged or that Originalism courts evolving case law—so the best summary is that living approaches adapt with society, and originalism anchors interpretation to the founding text.

Interpretation hinges on whether the meaning of constitutional text is treated as fixed at the founding or as something that can mature with society. The Living Constitution approach sees constitutional meaning as dynamic, allowing judges to take into account contemporary values, technology, and social norms when applying the guarantees to new situations. Originalism, by contrast, holds that the text’s meaning was fixed at the founding (often interpreted through the framers’ intent or the original public meaning) and should guide current decisions without being rewritten to fit modern values. Because of that, the Living Constitution tends to justify expanding or adapting rights as society changes, while Originalism emphasizes fidelity to the original meaning as the constraint on interpretation. The other descriptions invert or mix up these directions—for example, suggesting the Living Constitution keeps the meaning unchanged or that Originalism courts evolving case law—so the best summary is that living approaches adapt with society, and originalism anchors interpretation to the founding text.