Which method of interperting the constitution , ''original intent'' or ''living docuement'' do you think is more valid?

Scholars debate this one but in my opinion that inherent contradictions that exist for "original intent" make it invalid.

We've seen time and again Judges who espouse original intent are unable to reconcile either the realities of the founder's time (guns, in particular) or an understanding that the founder's got it wrong sometime (slavery, etc.)

To answer this question, you must understand both terms.

1) "Original intent"- This concept revolves around the idea that individuals interpreting the constitution in today's society must consider what the original founding fathers were trying to do with these laws.

2)" Living document"- This is the concept that the interpretation of the constitution will constantly evolve as society changes.

I would say the "living document" argument is stronger. This is because the founding fathers made it so that the US Constitution can be changed later on. Adding amendments to the Constitution shows that this is supposed to be a living document, that constantly changes.

Another reason why the "living document" concept is stronger is due to the fact that it can adapt to today's society. Most likely, the founding fathers couldn't have predicted the technology and social media we have today. However, we need a document that can adapt to this society in order to determine what is or isn't protected free speech. The "living document" argument allows us to do that.Explanation:

`stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar current or future case. stare decisis ensures that cases with identical facts be approached in the same way, unless overruled by the same court or a higher court such as the us supreme court. simply put, it binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions.

stare decisis is a latin term meaning "to stand by that which is decided".