sideration. Changes in the Constitution that stem from this kind of philosophy will end up with principles of the population at large, while ensuring that the framers still have a say in the underlying decision or ruling. This interpretation is seen to enhance democratic ideals and the notion of republicanism.OriginalismThe job for the Judge here is to find the law. Look at the constitution test to see of the meaning is clear, and if the meaning is clear then the case is settled, otherwise they have to fund other means to fund what the law should be. They would look at the intentions if the framers, the spirit of the constitution, look at judicial reviews, how the ratifiers understood the constitution. Non-OriginalismThe job for the judge here is to promote justice, her own values, economic and social. They would look at the constitution text and imply it; the text is not tied to literally interpretation. Their conception is that the judge interprets what is good for the country, at any given time. They dont care about the intensions of the framers, they would say why should we be governed by people that are dead, constitution belongs to the living. They would keep the constitution updated, current. They would do this by amending, changing the constitution to keep it current.Critics of OriginalismThe judge own values may get in the way, epistemological, historical. We cannot know today in 1999 what the framers intended in 1789. We dont have accurate historical document (material) representing political problems. Can we accurate apply original problems that the framers saw today, they couldnt for example imagine that we would have something like Internet and how free speech would apply to that? We should Hamilton and Jefferson rule us from the grave. How does we know that what the framers intended and what the ratifiers understood the constitution to be, was the same.Critics of Non- OriginalismWhat qualifies the judge to dete...
