We have spent a considerable amount of time this semester talking about various types of constitutional issues through the lens of Supreme Court decisions. The Supreme Court has a battle that they wage with each other over the meaning of the Constitution, and how the Constitution should be interpreted. The two broad options over how to read the Constitution are: 1) Strict constructionism, in which the rights we have as Americans are defined narrowly, based on the text and the history (originalism) of the Constitution; and 2) Living Constitutionalism, in which the rights we have grow and evolve with the changing society, even though the text of the Constitution doesn’t change (so, the meaning of the Constitution changes as society changes). Given the framework for the debate, how do the cases that we have discussed this semester reflect (1) and (2)? Give examples of decisions that are rooted in strict constructionism and living constitutionalism and show how they are rooted in one of those views. Conclude by making a case for one view over the other. Which view is the superior way to understand the Constitution and why?