Abstract

The constitution is the people’s rulebook for government. It speaks its values and directs

various public officials as well as the general public. Consequently, it is important that those

interpreting the text do it correctly so as to maintain its actual meaning as intended by its

framers. With critics hold that judges are miserably failing the people by their inability to

restrict themselves to the obligation of interpreting the U.S. Constitution, instead preferring to

interchange their perceptions on the relevant political and social issues for those expressly

stated in the constitution, a controversial debate about how the court should carry out the

process of constitutional interpretation continues to gain momentum. Holding that

constitutional interpretation is a form quite distinct from the shape taken when interpreting a

string of words or texts or which is employed in disciplines such as history or literacy studies,

or even the social and natural sciences, this discussion presents some of the most common

ways used by courts to generate meaning from constitutional texts. These include but not

limited to original meaning, originalism, textualism, strict constructionism, precedent, and

living document.