Final answer:
The role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution is a debated topic. Originalism argues for adherence to the original meaning, while others suggest a flexible approach. The Supreme Court employs a combination of both approaches in their interpretations.
Step-by-step explanation:
The role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution is a complex and ongoing debate. One perspective, known as originalism, argues that justices should adhere to the original meaning of the Constitution as intended by the framers. Originalists believe that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its text, historical context, and the framers' intent. On the other hand, there are those who argue for a more flexible approach, contending that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of new circumstances and evolving societal values.
Supporters of this view believe that the Constitution is a living document that can be subject to interpretation and adaptation over time. They argue that the framers could not have anticipated all the technological advancements and societal changes that exist today. Therefore, it is necessary for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in a way that addresses modern issues while staying true to its principles.
In practice, the Supreme Court has employed a combination of originalism and a more flexible approach in its interpretations of the Constitution. Justices may refer to the original intent when examining historical documents or analyzing the language of the Constitution, but they also take into account the evolving nature of society and consider how the Constitution can be applied to contemporary issues.