The American Constitution is one of the oldest governing frameworks to have ever existed in political history. However, almost every aspect of life in America has been radically transformed since the Constitutional Convention in 1789. Economic, social, and political factors have changed dramatically over the past 227 years. And with these changes, attitudes and perspectives regarding Constitutional interpretation have shifted immensely.
There are competing conceptions of the Constitution among legal scholars. A fierce debate exists between Originalists and Progressives regarding the true meaning of the Constitution and the direction in which it ought to guide us. The Originalists derive their positions from classical liberalism, which few would deny was the preeminent mindset the Founding Fathers held at the time of the Constitutional Convention. The Originalists argue that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was by the Founders and advocate for a limited government that focuses on little more than national defense, enforcement of contracts, and preservation of individual liberty. On the other hand, Progressives have interpreted the Constitution as a living document and have successfully argued for the government to pursue matters that are precariously absent from…show more content… Richard Epstein argues that Progressives have fundamentally altered the Constitution’s meaning and that government should not be involved in these matters because they tend to perform poorly and are prone towards creation of state-sponsored monopolies and cartels. Against this, Cass Sunstein argues that social and economic conditions warrant changes which alter and improve our interpretation of the Constitution and that government ought to expand social & economic welfare by adopting Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s proposed Second Bill of
