How did originalism differ from living constitutionalism?

Originalism and living constitutionalism represent two fundamentally different approaches to interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

Originalism is a theory of legal interpretation holding that the Constitution is best understood by the common meaning of its words and phrases at the time they were enacted. Proponents, such as Justice Antonin Scalia, argued that this fixed-meaning approach provides an objective basis for rulings, prevents judges from imposing personal biases, and limits the judiciary's role in favor of democratic processes.123

In contrast, living constitutionalism—the approach associated with the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren—views the Constitution’s language as purposefully broad and variable. Under this theory, constitutional principles are intended to be adaptable, allowing their meanings to evolve to address current societal problems and needs.124

While originalists view their method as a necessary constraint against "judicial activism," critics of originalism argue that it ignores the evolving nature of the law and that historical analysis often fails to produce a single, definitive interpretation.13