Which are the two theories of constitutional interpretation described in the material?

Which are the two theories of constitutional interpretation described in the material?

• A. Textualism and Structuralism
• B. Stare decisis and precedent
• C. Originalism and the Living Constitution
• D. Judicial activism and restraint

Answer: (C)

The main idea here is about two contrasting ways to interpret the Constitution: one that sticks to the meaning at the time of ratification, and another that allows constitutional meaning to evolve with modern society. The correct pairing is Originalism, which asks what the framers or ratifiers understood the text to mean when it was adopted, and often relies on the text as it stood then, sometimes focusing on original intent or original public meaning. The other is the Living Constitution (dynamic constitutionalism), which holds that the meaning of constitutional provisions can adapt over time in response to changing values, circumstances, and understandings, even without new amendments. This contrast is why these two names are described as the theories in question. The remaining options describe related ideas that aren’t the two interpretive theories being contrasted here: some list methods or doctrines (like focusing on textual meaning alone or the structure of the document), while others describe how courts decide cases (stare decisis and precedent, or judicial activism and restraint) rather than the theory of interpretation itself.

The main idea here is about two contrasting ways to interpret the Constitution: one that sticks to the meaning at the time of ratification, and another that allows constitutional meaning to evolve with modern society. The correct pairing is Originalism, which asks what the framers or ratifiers understood the text to mean when it was adopted, and often relies on the text as it stood then, sometimes focusing on original intent or original public meaning. The other is the Living Constitution (dynamic constitutionalism), which holds that the meaning of constitutional provisions can adapt over time in response to changing values, circumstances, and understandings, even without new amendments. This contrast is why these two names are described as the theories in question. The remaining options describe related ideas that aren’t the two interpretive theories being contrasted here: some list methods or doctrines (like focusing on textual meaning alone or the structure of the document), while others describe how courts decide cases (stare decisis and precedent, or judicial activism and restraint) rather than the theory of interpretation itself.