Final answer:
Chief Justice John Marshall viewed the Constitution as the supreme law that stands above Congress's legislative acts, aligning with 19th-century legal scholars' calls for a fixed interpretation unless formally amended. Yet, subsequent 20th-century views, notably from Chief Justice Hughes, evolved to interpret it as an adaptive document through judicial review, reflecting societal changes.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Chief Justice John Marshall, the Constitution is interpreted as the supreme law of the land, which should not contradict the legislative acts of Congress. However, the view of the Constitution as either a static document with a fixed interpretation or as a living document that adapts over time is a subject of debate among scholars, judges, and policymakers.
Joseph Story, a 19th-century legal scholar, echoed Marshall's sentiments, arguing for a fixed and unchanging interpretation, only to be altered through formal amendments. Transitioning into the 20th century, jurists like Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes began to see the Constitution as a document that evolves with judicial interpretation, effectively adapting to societal changes.
The argument between originalism and judicial activism reflects contrasting approaches in Constitutional interpretation. Originalists believe in adherence to the text and intentions of the framers, while judicial activists assert that the Constitution's meaning can evolve with time. This has led to various interpretations of Constitutional concepts such as freedom of speech, which may shift across generations. The Constitution's relevance in the modern age is frequently carried out through judicial review which allows for a nuanced approach reflective of contemporary society.