times, but should be interpreted based only on the text as it was understood when it was written (Singer A5). Justice Scalia is certainly not the only believer in this take on the Constitution, but he is one of the most prominent, modern, and not to mention vociferous opponents of the living Constitution. One of the main arguments Scalia makes is that ...originalism has its imperfections, but when compared with the non-originalism alternatives, it comes out as a lesser evil (Murphy 16). In this, he is simply stating that neither idea is fully flawless, but that after one weighs the pros and cons of both sides, originalism comes out on top. There are a few arguments for original intent which would seem to point to this conclusion. In 1845, Justice Joseph Story wrote How easily men satisfy themselves that the Constitution is exactly what they wish it to be (Tribe 50). This brings up a large piece of supporting evidence, which is also the biggest problem with Constitutional interpretation, and that is that most judges use the living document strategy to read their own values and political judgments into the Constitution (Murphy 13). Nonoriginalist approaches are praised because they enable judges to expand upon individual liberty by divining rights that are only implicitly granted by the Constitution. To achieve this benefit, however, a judge must depart from the text and original understanding of the Constitution; having done so, there is no reason why a judge may not just as easily contract or restrict those rights that are explicitly specified and guaranteed by the Constitution (Singer 14). Even by the definition of the word interpretation, it is in fact, making the Constitution exactly what one wants it to be. This can be a very dangerous power to put in a judges hand. Political Scientist Henry Jaffa writes One would think ... that when Paul Revere called out The British are coming he meant they were coming to rescue us fr...
