Final answer:
The interpretation of the Constitution has changed over time through executive branch actions, judicial decisions, and party practices and customs, reflecting a dynamic rather than static application of its principles.
Step-by-step explanation:
The interpretation of the Constitution has evolved over time through various mechanisms, including actions by the executive and judicial branches, as well as through party practices and customs. For instance, the executive branch, specifically the Presidency, has been perceived as accumulating more power, suggesting a flexible interpretation of the Constitution's framework. Furthermore, the judicial branch, through the Supreme Court, has played a critical role in interpreting the Constitution, with some justices considering it a 'living document' that adapts to the changing times, while others adhere to the original meanings of the text.
Traditions and customs, such as the President's Cabinet and the practice of the State of the Union address, have also influenced the interpretation and application of the Constitutional framework outside of its explicit mandates. Lastly, the courts sometimes approach policy formation in their rulings, showcasing a more nuanced power dynamic in the federal government's operation.
Joseph Story's view contrasts with modern practices by advocating for a constant interpretation unless formally amended. This highlights the tension between those who view the Constitution as static and those who perceive it as a dynamic, living document.