The U.S. Constitution is a remarkable document, having guided our nation for over two centuries and through many tumultuous times. But as times change, should the Constitution change with them? Should we uncompromisingly follow a document written 237 years ago as we face issues our founding fathers would have never conceived? Or should we instead practice flexibility in our understanding of the Constitution, at the risk of straying from our nation’s foundational principles? The answer, to me, is clear. To view our founding document as a museum relic, a dusty artifact frozen in the 18th century, is to misunderstand its fundamental purpose. The Constitution, in its truest sense, is a living, breathing document – a dynamic framework designed to adapt and evolve alongside the ever-changing fabric of American society, and must therefore be viewed as such. 

There are those who follow the strict constructionist, or “original intent” interpretation, who believe that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly through the lens of what the framers envisioned when drafting each part of the Constitution. After all, to these strict constructionists, if our understanding of the Constitution is so malleable, what is the purpose of such a foundational document? They believe that other interpretations are irrelevant and that straying from the intentions of those that wrote the Constitution inherently undermines it. Yet, adaptability is necessary for modern governance. You need not look far into history to see governments that have fallen because of their rigid refusal to adapt. Times change, people and technologies change, and the social, economic and political constructs that define our lives will inevitably be altered. At the same time, it is critical that we adhere to the virtuous principles upon which the United States was founded. The best way to interpret the Constitution is a flexible approach that builds on the ideals and principles enshrined in the Constitution. We should not – and cannot- allow the circumstances of 1787 to define how we act in 2024. 

This debate over constitutional interpretation isn’t merely an academic exercise; it holds profound implications for our society. The nation witnessed this first hand in the summer of 2022 when the protections that for nearly half a century guaranteed access to abortion for millions of women were unceremoniously stripped away by six justices on the Supreme Court. In the wake of this decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 13 states have completely banned abortion and eight more states restrict it in some capacity. The decision ultimately came down to whether the justices on the Supreme Court believed that the Constitution reserves protections for the right to abortion, despite the document not explicitly stating so. The six conservative justices on the Supreme Court did not interpret the Constitution in this way, citing that the word “abortion” does not appear in the Constitution a single time nor is it “deeply rooted” in our nation’s history. This decision repealed Roe v. Wade, which, in contrast, was decided by justices who believed that despite abortion not being explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it was inherently protected by the framework of the Fourteenth Amendment and the right to privacy. These two very different decisions are a result of two very conflicting doctrines. 

As the Dobbs decision demonstrates, much can change in a few decades. Both Republican and Democratic nominees for the 2024 Presidential Election were born during a period when African Americans were forced to use separate facilities from white people, towns in the Deep South did not allow black people out after sunset under threat of summary lynching, interracial marriage was illegal, the federal government sanctioned the internment of hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans civilians, gender roles were strictly enforced, homosexuality was strictly taboo and illegal, and antisemitism was rampant. The social and political values that were commonplace in these times seem alien to most people today. Although we still have much progress to be made, we have made leaps and bounds past these injustices that were commonplace just a few decades ago. 2024 will mark 70 years since Brown v. Board of Education ruled that racial segregation was “inherently unequal”, and 60 years since the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Similarly, Loving v. Virginia allowed interracial couples to marry. It may be hard to believe, but a mere nine years ago, 31 states had active statutes that banned same-sex marriage until Obergefell v. Hodges ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment allowed same-sex couples to marry their significant other. Many of the norms and beliefs that were present when Joe Biden and Donald Trump were born are now seen as backward.

These strides weren’t inherent to the Constitution; they emerged from interpretations that challenged antiquated norms. It was not too long before the Civil Rights Movement that the Supreme Court, with the same statutes and amendments in the Constitution, allowed the government to detain thousands of American citizens in internment camps in Korematsu v. United States, upheld state-imposed racial segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson, and ruled that the forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities in Buck v. Bell was constitutional. These were cases that occurred after the Civil War and the Reconstruction amendments that were created to give rise to greater equality. Before the Civil War and such amendments, not only were the interpretations of the Constitution heinous, as demonstrated in Dred Scott Case, which ruled that black people could be legally treated as property, but Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, of the Constitution itself explicitly declared that those enslaved had 3/5ths of the worth of non enslaved people. Would a strict constructionist or Textualist such as Neil Gorsuch uphold this provision if it was still active in the Constitution today? Likely not, since the moral values since that period have changed. 

 The founding fathers were human beings, not prophets. They could not be expected to be able to predict the seismic shifts in every facet of our lives that would occur over the next few centuries. When the Constitution was first being drafted, slavery was the norm, Great Britain was the greatest geopolitical threat to the United States, warfare was fought through infantry volley firing each other with muskets in neat lines, and wind-powered 40 gun naval ships pounding each other broadside at point-blank range. We now have instantaneous forms of communication, supersonic aircraft and missiles, firearms that can shoot hundreds of rounds a minute, social media networks that connect people from around the globe, and the ability to destroy entire cities, along with millions of people, in the blink of an eye. China, a country seen as a colonial backwater in 1787, is a global power and the United States’ principal enemy while the very country the United States gained independence from is now our closest ally. Today’s reality, with its technological advancements and global issues, demands a fluid interpretation.

It is crucial to recognize the Constitution’s capacity to evolve alongside societal changes. Respecting its foundational principles is critical, yet we must remain adaptable to contemporary circumstances. Failure to do so risks stagnation and inequity. Recent historical events and judicial rulings underscore the perils of rigid adherence. The original intent of the founding fathers is to build an equitable country where all are equal under the law and all have a say in our governance is critical to interpreting the Constitution. The United States is nothing if not a nation of change, and as long as we keep these core values in mind, we can still build towards a brighter future.