A Debate - Should the U.S. Constitution be interpreted according to its Original Public Meaning?

Summary: It was over three decades ago, when then-Attorney General Ed Meese initiated an important spirited national debate about the proper application of our most important governing document—the U.S. Constitution. Since then, Originalism has emerged as a serious theory of constitutional interpretation that has permeated the judiciary and the academy. Originalists believe that the Constitution and laws should be interpreted based on their actual text and original public meaning. Conversely, proponents of a “Living Constitution,” stress the need to adapt the Constitution “to cope with current problems and current needs.” These two theories will go head-to-head in a spirited debate with two well-known constitutional scholars, John Eastman and Michael Gerhardt.