Notes

I think the Constitution should be interpreted as closely as possible to the way the drafters intended. I know that there have definitely been some major changes in society since when the drafters wrote it, but for it to still be as strong of a document and continue to be the foundation for our laws and government, it needs to be interpreted the same as it has been for the past 200+ years. A strict interpretation of the Constitution also ensures that the balance of powers is implemented and that no one person has too much power, whether that be a President, Congressman, or a Judge. A strict interpretation keeps things as fair and similar as possible across the board. The big downside with a strict constitutional interpretation is that it was written over 200 years ago and society and what is acceptable in society has changed. People that see this and feel that an interpretation relevant to now would be better. This would be better in terms of keeping up with the times and recent scientific discoveries that might alter what was true many years ago. However, the downsides to this loose constitutional interpretation are creating more centralized power and less state power. Between these two arguments, I firmly believe that a strict interpretation is and will always be better than a loose interpretation of the Constitution because it is the foundation for our country and government and changing how we make decisions around it can have massive consequences in the future for the country and the citizens.