Originalism (interpret the Constitution as understood at ratification) vs. living constitutionalism (interpret it to adapt to contemporary values) is the dominant debate in US constitutional theory.

The debate is partly empirical (what did the framers mean?) and partly normative (why should their meaning bind us?). Originalists answer the normative question with democratic legitimacy — the text was ratified. Living constitutionalists answer with adaptability — a fixed text cannot govern an unimaginably different society.

Both face internal problems. Originalists disagree about whose original understanding matters (framers, ratifiers, public meaning). Living constitutionalists face the counter-majoritarian difficulty: why should nine unelected judges adapt the constitution?

Related: [[rule-of-law-components]], [[@alice/on-linking-ideas]]