normally, people usually split constitutional interpretation into two camps, 'living constitution' and 'originalism'. living constitution means we can use our modern perceptions and values to determine what the text means, whereas originalism means we should only interpret the text to mean what was originally intended.
a new version i've come across is 'dynamic originalism'. this means that the core principles orginally intended should be preserved, but modern changes in context can allow for a different application of the text. i think the new justice jackson on the supreme court follows this philosophy.
so for example. originally, interracial marriage could be banned by law. but, the original context was that interracial meaning was immoral or unbliclical or that black people were inferior. but, modern sensibility differs with that. only rarely do people think blacks are inferior or that it's all immoral or unbliblical. the core value of the bible, or morality, can still be a guiding light, even though the context is different.
so what do ya'll think?
is this just a back door end run around the power of originalist thinking? i'm sure there's lots of examples where it would seem reasonable to change the application of text based on changing contexts, such as with search and seizure and probable cause etc. my guess is when you get into the weeds, it would become muddled or blurry if one were to espouse 'dynamic originalism'.
