Should the Constitution be interpreted according to the original intent of its framers, or should it be a living document that adapts to changing social and political realities?

That is a most pertinent question. While it is true that the framers did not always see eye to eye on every detail, the very act of crafting the Constitution involved deliberation and compromise. To discern the original intent, one must look to the document itself, the records of the convention, and the great debates that ensued during ratification. It is through these sources that we may find the truest understanding of what the framers sought to establish.

With all due respect to the Chief Justice, I find myself viewing this matter through a different lens. It is, perhaps, too optimistic to suggest a singular "truest understanding" can be gleaned when those very framers held such divergent opinions. Surely, the spirit of '76 was one of liberty and self-governance, but we must also acknowledge the compromises made, often at the expense of those least able to advocate for themselves. To rigidly bind ourselves to an "original intent" risks enshrining the limitations and prejudices of that era, rather than allowing the Constitution to evolve.