Final answer:
The philosophy that justices should interpret the Constitution as the framers intended is known as originalism, which emphasizes judicial restraint and contrasts with the concept of the Constitution as a 'living document' embraced by judicial activists.
Step-by-step explanation:
The idea that Supreme Court justices should interpret the Constitution in terms of the original intentions of the framers is known as originalism. This philosophy suggests that interpretations should be grounded in the text of the Constitution and the contextual documents such as The Federalist Papers, rather than being swayed by contemporary societal changes or political correctness. Advocates of this approach argue for judicial restraint, opposing the idea of the Constitution as a 'living document' which can be adapted based on current societal needs, a view often associated with judicial activism.
Prominent 19th-century legal scholar Joseph Story championed the notion that the Constitution has 'a fixed, uniform, permanent construction,' and should only be changed by formal amendment. Meanwhile, recent trends have seen a stronger presence of judicial activism, where judges interpret the Constitution more loosely, responding to changes in society, as can be seen in historical decisions that inferred a right to privacy or other rights not explicitly stated in the document.
In summary, the debate between originalism and living constitutionalism continues to play a critical role in how laws and policies are interpreted and applied in the United States. The method of interpreting the Constitution can have wide-reaching implications on various aspects of governance and individual rights.