Originalism vs. the Living Constitution: Why Reading the Constitution Is Optional if You Know a Judge
Legal scholars confirmed this week that the fastest way to resolve any constitutional question is no longer debate, precedent, or even the Constitution itself—but simply finding the right judge.
Under the modern legal framework, Americans are encouraged to file their case, lose respectfully, and then keep filing until they locate a judge—often in the Ninth Circuit—who understands that the Constitution is not a fixed document, but a living, breathing suggestion.
Supporters of Originalism, the outdated belief that laws mean what they said when written, continue to insist that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of its authors. Critics say this approach dangerously ignores modern feelings, evolving narratives, and the occasional emergency injunction.
Advocates of the Living Constitution argue that the document must grow with the times—often overnight—and preferably in direct response to whatever issue is trending on social media.
Legal analysts explain the process simply:
- File your case.
- Lose.
- Declare the ruling unconstitutional.
- Find another judge.
- Repeat until victory is achieved.
“This is not judge shopping,” clarified one expert. “It’s judicial self-discovery.”
Remarkably, the same argument deemed unconstitutional on Monday can become constitutionally protected by Wednesday—provided it’s reviewed by a more enlightened bench.
One federal judge recently ruled that a policy violated the Constitution’s plain language. Hours later, another judge ruled that the Constitution’s plain language was problematic, insufficiently inclusive, and in need of reinterpretation.
Both rulings were immediately hailed as historic.
Critics warn this approach undermines the rule of law. Supporters counter that consistency itself can be oppressive. “If the Constitution doesn’t change,” one legal scholar noted, “how can outcomes?”
At press time, lawmakers were reportedly considering an update to the judicial system that would streamline the process by assigning each issue its own pre-approved circuit.
Until then, citizens are advised to remember the modern legal maxim:You don’t need to be right.
You just need the right judge.
