When the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787 it took at least 30 seconds to load a musket. Could the framers of the Constitution have envisioned automatic weapons? In a time when writing daily letters was the norm could they have imagined the legal issues related to email, texting or the internet?
How do courts, from lower courts all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, interpret the U.S. Constitution to decide 21st Century issues? Two schools of thought on interpreting the U.S. Constitution—originalism and living constitutionalism—take differing views.
Ken Kersch, a political science professor at Boston College, explains that originalism and a living constitution are both theories, mainly created by law professors and directed toward judges, on the best way to interpret the U.S. Constitution when the document’s language alone does not provide a clear answer to a constitutional question. READ MORE
To subscribe The Informed Citizen, NJSBF’s civics blog, click here.