Constitutional Interpretation: Living Document or Original Intent?
Students will compare originalist and living constitutionalist approaches to interpreting the Constitution, analyzing how each would decide landmark cases differently.
🌍 Why This Lesson Matters
How should we interpret a 200+ year old document? Originalists like Justice Scalia argue we must follow the Founders' intent. Living Constitutionalists like Justice Brennan believe the document evolves with society. This debate shapes rulings on everything from abortion to gun rights. Students engage with real judicial philosophy.
🎓 Learning Goals
Objectives
- Define originalism and living constitutionalism.
- Compare how each philosophy would interpret a constitutional provision.
- Analyze a Supreme Court case through both lenses.
- Develop and defend their own interpretive philosophy.
- Engage in Socratic dialogue about the nature of constitutional meaning.
Essential Questions
- "Should the Constitution mean what its authors intended?"
- "Can a document written in 1787 govern modern issues like the internet?"
- "Who should have the final say on constitutional meaning?"
📋 Lesson Procedure
Hook: The 2nd Amendment
15 minDisplay the 2nd Amendment. Ask: "What does 'well regulated Militia' mean today? Does it matter what the Founders thought in 1791?" Use student responses to introduce the interpretive divide.
Philosophies Explained
20 minMini-lecture with primary sources. Read excerpts from Scalia (originalism) and Brennan (living Constitution). Create a comparison chart.
Case Application
25 minIn groups, students receive a case (Heller-gun rights, Obergefell-marriage equality, etc.) and must argue it from both originalist and living constitutionalist perspectives.
Socratic Seminar
15 minFacilitated discussion: "Which approach is more faithful to the rule of law? Which better protects rights?"
✅ Assessment
Students write a 2-page essay defending one interpretive approach, using at least one case as evidence.