There are three basic modes of constitutional interpretation: strict construction, aspirationalism, and textualism. The strict construction approach seeks to apply the Constitution according to what it says explicitly rather than based on desirable social consequences; the aspirational approach applies the Constitution based on societal standards regardless of whether it contradicts what it says, and the textualist approach looks only at the text of laws regardless of their effect on society.
The literal interpretation assumes that the US Constitution was set in stone by an all-knowing entity. If this is true, then what use are the amendments if one had already decided the outcome of every single dispute ever framed under them? The idea of being open to interpretation is so that new issues can be solved using old principles. Yes, some people may choose to "go rogue" with these principles come up, but I side with keeping my own freedoms limited for greater freedoms for others. And finally, aspirationalism takes into account that America's founding fathers wanted aspirations, not just laws. They would have understood that sometimes even they couldn't agree on moral solutions, and they knew times change over time.
I prefer strict aspirational because it takes into account social progress. The Constitution is meant to be a living document that isn't static, and the Constitution was written in a time when slavery, women's suffrage and segregation were still acceptable. The Constitution needs to evolve with society and make sense in modern times - interpretations.
The Constitution was written at a time when slavery was legal in America - aspirationalism would have been impossible back then. The Constitution works on interpretation - if it didn't, we wouldn't need it. Over time, we've developed aspirationalism to be able to interpret the Constitution more fairly. It's not what the Constitution says, it's how well society can agree to interpret that.
Explanation:
The modes of constitutional interpretation are two of the most popular ways in which constitutional law is interpreted. An aspirationalist judge would favor arguments that all legislation should follow the “original intent” of the constitution while strict constructionists follows the literal text of the constitution.
