摘要
Originalism and living constitutionalism has long been viewed as two opposing theories of constitutional interpretation in American constitutional scholarship. Originalism, on the one hand, is a backward-looking theory, which seeks the original intent or original meaning of the Constitution. Living constitutionalism, on the other hand, is a forward-looking theory, which views the American Constitution as an open text that is ＂intended to endure for ages to come.＇＇1 There seems to be an inevitable conflict between originalism and living constitutionalism.
Originalism and living constitutionalism has long been viewed as two opposing theories of constitutional interpretation in American constitutional scholarship. Originalism, on the one hand, is a backward-looking theory, which seeks the original intent or original meaning of the Constitution. Living constitutionalism, on the other hand, is a forward-looking theory, which views the American Constitution as an open text that is ＂intended to endure for ages to come.＇＇1 There seems to be an inevitable conflict between originalism and living constitutionalism.
