Constitutional Interpretation

Some find a . . . candidate for constraint in the needs and perspective of the current generation of interpreters. They argue that because a constitution “is bound to be read in changing ways as time passes and circumstances change,” the text should be regarded “not as containing a declaration of the will and intentions of men long since dead . . . but as declaring the will and intentions of the present inheritors and possessors of sovereign power.” But if this is your “method” why bother with the text of the Constitution (or any text) at all? Why not take the shorter route and just enact statutes that reflect your will and be done with it? The proponents of the “living Constitution” or the “dynamic Constitution” or the “best that can be Constitution” are not urging another form of interpretation; they are urging its abandonment by removing from it any constraint whatsoever. . . . Saying that you don't want to be bound by the dead hand of the past is saying that you don't want a constitution, or at least not one taken seriously.

-- Stanley Fish, "Intention Is All There Is: A Critical Analysis of Aharon Barak's Purposive Interpretation of the Law," 29 Cardozo L. Rev. 1109 (2008).