First in looking at how people judge and interpret the Constitution there are two philosophies of textualism. Those philosophies are that of originalism and that of the living document. Originalism is the belief that the Constitution should be looked at for what the words said and the original meaning or original intent of those words. The living documents believers see the Constitution as a fluid document. While it gives the baseline it has the ability to change with the changing of time (Austin, 2020). I fully believe in the second and believe that the founding fathers thought so as well. If they didn’t we would have amendments to begin with. An amendment is a document that is in place to correct or expound upon the original document. They created the Constitution and then within two years submitted the amendments. Everything that the Constitution and Amendments were based on were things that the people experienced under other’s rule and wanted to make sure they didn’t have to experience or be subjected to again. A person doesn’t know what they don’t know until someone shows it to them. Someone could get a law passed that may seem innocent enough but not until later does the issues with it truly come out.
With that I believe that the court does possess the power of judicial review. Someone has to do that check and be able to change or modify the laws. With a case that was considered by the judicial review process I would dive deeper into the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. I like this because of how many people want to preach about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc but then when another that has a contrary viewpoint tries to do the same they try to shut it down
respond to this discussion question in 100 words