The Three Approaches to Constitutional Interpretation: Two Extremes vs. Principled Originalism10 min read

In contemporary constitutional discourse, interpretive frameworks often fall into three broad categories. These approaches reflect deeper philosophical commitments about law, authority, and the role of historical context in shaping present governance. While debates over constitutional meaning are perennial, the stakes remain high: how we interpret the Constitution determines the limits of governmental power and the scope of individual rights.

Importantly, the framers themselves anticipated that their work would require amendment and clarification. Article V provides a mechanism for constitutional change, and the Bill of Rights—ratified shortly after the original text—demonstrates their awareness that the document was not exhaustive. They did not hold to a rigid textual absolutism, but rather embedded flexibility within the constitutional structure. ¹

This article outlines two interpretive extremes—Textual Fundamentalism and Progressive Revisionism—and proposes a third, mediating approach: Principled Originalism. Each framework offers a distinct lens through which to understand the Constitution’s authority and adaptability.

1. Textual Fundamentalism: The Constitution as Immutable Code

1.1 Literalism and Its Inherent Limitations

Textual Fundamentalism treats the Constitution as a fixed legal code, akin to sacred scripture. Its adherents resist interpretive flexibility, arguing that any deviation from the text risks legislative activism and erosion of democratic legitimacy. This approach emphasizes fidelity to the document’s original wording, often rejecting broader extrapolations or evolving applications.

However, strict literalism carries significant risks that threaten the Constitution’s long-term viability and effectiveness. The most fundamental danger lies in the document’s necessary incompleteness—no founding charter, however prescient, can anticipate every circumstance that future generations will encounter. When constitutional interpretation becomes rigidly bound to explicit textual provisions alone, it may fail to address critical governance challenges that fall outside the framers’ specific enumeration.

This inflexibility becomes particularly problematic when literalism prevents the application of relevant constitutional principles to novel situations. For instance, the Constitution contains no explicit mention of air travel, electronic surveillance, or digital communications, yet these technologies raise profound questions about Fourth Amendment protections and interstate commerce regulation. A purely literalist approach might render the Constitution inadequate to address such modern realities, effectively neutering its capacity to govern contemporary society.

Moreover, the amendment process outlined in Article V, while deliberately deliberative, was not designed to be the sole mechanism for constitutional adaptation. The framers understood that constitutional principles often require application to unforeseen circumstances. As Chief Justice John Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, “It is a Constitution we are expounding,” emphasizing that constitutional interpretation must account for the document’s broad purposes, not merely its specific provisions. ²

The danger of excessive literalism is that it can transform a living charter of governance into a historical artifact, unable to fulfill its essential function of providing a framework for ordered liberty in changing times. When rigid adherence to text prevents the recognition of underlying principles, the Constitution risks becoming irrelevant to the very challenges it was designed to help future generations navigate.

2. Progressive Revisionism: The Constitution as Living Document

2.1 Historical Skepticism and Normative Evolution

Progressive Revisionism views the Constitution as a dynamic framework, shaped by evolving social norms and contemporary values. This approach often downplays original intent, arguing that historical contexts are morally compromised or politically irrelevant. Instead, it prioritizes present-day ethical commitments and pragmatic governance. ³

2.2 The Danger of Abandoning Timeless Principles

While this method allows for moral progress and institutional responsiveness, it risks untethering constitutional interpretation from any stable foundation of historically proven and unchanging principles based on human nature. When we fail to acknowledge the timeless principles embedded in the Constitution, we can drift into modern relativistic arguments that lose sight of the tested errors and hard-won wisdom that the founders sought to immortalize for future generations.

The framers were not merely products of their time but students of history who understood recurring patterns of political pathology. One of their central insights was the primacy of individual rights as a bulwark against what they recognized as the persistent temptation of majoritarian tyranny—what we might today call Machiavellian communal utilitarianism, where individual dignity is sacrificed for purported collective goods. The Bill of Rights represents not an accident of history but a deliberate effort to enshrine protections against well-documented forms of governmental overreach that had plagued human societies across centuries.

Without anchoring principles, the Constitution becomes vulnerable to ideological manipulation and transient political agendas. When constitutional meaning becomes entirely contingent upon contemporary values, it loses its essential function as a constraint on temporary majorities and political fashions. ⁴

2.3 The Founders’ Fear of Judicial Supremacy

Ironically, one of the timeless principles the founders most wanted to secure was the careful balance of power among the three branches of government. While contemporary debates often focus on executive overreach, the framers’ primary institutional concern was actually judicial supremacy—the possibility that unelected judges might usurp the democratic functions of the legislative and executive branches.

Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 78 that the judiciary must remain bound by the Constitution and not legislate from the bench:

“The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.” ⁵

Thomas Jefferson also cautioned against judicial supremacy:

“Our Constitution is a written one…If it is not reduced to writing, it is left to the mercy of the judiciary, which is the most dangerous of all forms of government.” ⁶

These statements reflect a foundational concern: that the judiciary must interpret, not invent, constitutional meaning. The framers understood that when judges become untethered from constitutional text and original principles, they effectively become philosopher-kings, imposing their own vision of justice rather than applying the law as democratically established.

3. Principled Originalism: A Golden Mean

3.1 Enduring Principles and Adaptive Application

Principled Originalism seeks to recover the Constitution’s normative architecture—its enduring principles of limited government, separation of powers, and individual rights—while allowing for their application to novel circumstances. It recognizes that the framers articulated timeless ideals, even as they embedded them in historically contingent language.

As Madison wrote in defense of the Constitution’s design:

“It is a Constitution we are expounding…a Constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” ⁷

3.2 Reconciling Fidelity and Flexibility

This approach avoids the rigidity of Textual Fundamentalism and the fluidity of Progressive Revisionism. It affirms that constitutional meaning is rooted in original public understanding, but that such understanding includes principles capable of guiding future governance. Principled Originalism thus offers a coherent framework for constitutional interpretation that balances historical fidelity with contemporary relevance. ⁸

4. Vague Language and Interpretive Disputes

One of the arguments that supports both principled and flexible approaches embraced by Originalism, and used as a cudgel against principled approach by Revisionists is the inclusion of ambiguous language in the Constitution – that which could be interpreted by original intent or modern sensibilities. A relevant example is the second amendment, the right to bear arms.

4.1 The Second Amendment and the Militia Clause

Few constitutional provisions have generated as much interpretive controversy as the Second Amendment. Its phrasing—”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”—has led to competing readings. Does the right to bear arms depend on militia service, or is it an individual right independent of collective defense? ⁹

4.2 How the Extremes Respond

Textual Fundamentalists often emphasize the plain meaning of “the right of the people,” treating it as an individual and unlimited entitlement regardless of the militia clause. Progressive Revisionists, by contrast, may interpret the amendment in light of modern gun violence and public safety concerns, or the lack of a need for militias in light of our standing military, arguing that its historical context no longer justifies broad gun rights. ¹⁰

4.3 The Principled Originalist Approach

Principled Originalism seeks to understand both the historical function of militias and the framers’ intent regarding individual self-defense. It recognizes that the “militia” was composed of ordinary citizens and that the right to bear arms was seen as a safeguard against government tyranny, not just invading armies. Thus, it interprets the amendment as protecting an individual right grounded in civic responsibility, while allowing for reasonable regulation consistent with the original principle. ¹¹

5. Further Reading

• Originalism Debate (University of Virginia Law, 2022) ¹²
• What Is the Living Constitution? (Brookings Institution, 2018) ¹³
• Constitutional Interpretation: Between Textualism and Originalism (Cato Institute, 2019) ¹⁴
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (U.S. Supreme Court, 2022) ¹⁵

6. Closing Note

The Constitution remains a foundational text not because it is immutable, but because it encodes principles that endure. By navigating between extremes—neither freezing the document in time nor dissolving its authority in presentism- we can avoid repeating the proven mistakes of the past.