Chapter 6 briefly discusses judicial interpretivists and strict constructionists. For more discussion on the issue read “How does the Supreme Court decide what the Constitution means?” How does a strict constructionist (originalist) interpret the Constitution compared to a judicial interpretivist (non-originalist)? Do you think the Constitution should be interpreted literally or is it an evolving document that needs to be interpreted differently over time? Why? Use examples of potential (or real) cases and demonstrate how a strict constructionaist and a judicial interpretivist would rule in these cases.

How does the Supreme Court decide what the Constitution means?