In 1878, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78, “the interpretation of the laws is the proper and particular province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to …show more content…
This group contends that an evolving or “living” interpretation is necessary, and that the framers allowed for this by writing in broad and flexible language. For proponents of the evolving constitution concept, original intent creates an archaic document. Supporters maintain that the Courts should analyze text, history, structure and precedent – but not within a legal vacuum.
Proponents of the originalist theory argue that adhering to original intent limits any one generation from ruling according to the passion of the times. Originalists refer to the framers’ inclusion of the amendment process as the intended method for adapting to societal changes, thus preventing judges from injecting personal values into the interpretations. Through this argument, originalists maintain that the framers recognized the importance of allowing for inevitable changes in society, but also recognized the need to balance popularity with permanent