Two common ways to interpret the constitution are “original intent/originalism” and “judicial activism.” Originalism is the philosophy of judicial decision making that suggests judges should attempt to ascertain the meaning of a particular provision of the Constitution by determining how it was understood at the time it was written and ratified. This may involve reading diaries and other historical documents to determine what the authors meant. Judicial activism is a philosophy of judicial decision making that suggests judges should use their power broadly to further justice. This may mean adapting the interpretation to fit the present-day context. 1. Given that the U. S. Supreme Court can declare laws or acts of Congress and the President unconstitutional, do you think this allows them too much power?

2. How can the other two branches use the checks and balances on the Supreme Court or what checks and balances do they have to use concerning the Judicial branch?

3. Which philosophy listed above is best used in interpreting the Constitution? Explain/Discuss your answers.