Currently, there is a divide in Constitutional interpretation between “originalists” and those who believe in a “living Constitution.” In 550-750 words, compose an essay that analyzes the opposing viewpoints on the nature of the constitution. Address the following: Who are the main proponents on each side of this debate? MY initial thoughts : Constitutionalists think it should not be altered or changed, should be taken for what its worth and not up for debate. They see it as a living breathing doc. Originalists think that the amendments are applicable to the time period it was originally written. They think that alterations should be made to be applicable for the current time period. They see the generational writing style differences as gray areas instead of reading literally and implementing into current circumstances. What are their arguments for or against their perspective on the Constitution? How might have these interpretational philosophies impacted the way the court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut?
https://www.writers24x7.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/logo-writers24x7-1-1-300x75.png 0 0 Writers24x7 https://www.writers24x7.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/logo-writers24x7-1-1-300x75.png Writers24x72021-09-06 00:09:182021-09-06 00:09:18Constitutionalist vs Originalist