How should the U.S. Constitution be interpreted and/or changed?
The question as to whether the federal Constitution should be interpreted like any other legal document or be treated differently is really a non-starter. The federal Constitution is a legal contract, just like a contract to buy a house, a corporate bond indenture or a partnership agreement. The standard test for interpreting a contract is “What did the parties intend?” Those who would treat it differently have never adduced an adequate reason for doing so. Over the years, various theories–which do overlap, have been adduced to offer a theoretical framework for interpretation. • Textual–look at the document itself. This is essentially originalism. • Historical–this is like #1, but secondary sources are also used. This is originalism on steroids. • Functional–try to balance the decision against the rest of the document. • Doctrinal–make decisions based on whatever legal doctrine is in vogue at the moment. • Prudential–will it work? Is it practical? • Equitable or Ethical–would th
