Living constitutionalism holds that constitutional meaning should be applied in light of **contemporary social understandings and evolving norms**, consistent with the text’s broad principles. In statutory cases, **purposivism** seeks to fulfill the law’s **aims** rather than its most literal phrasing.
# Core commitments - The Constitution announces **principles** designed to endure; their application may adapt. - For statutes, judges ask what **problem Congress meant to solve** and interpret text to make the law **work**.
# Methods & tools - **Precedent evolution** and doctrinal development. - Consideration of **changed facts** and modern conditions. - Legislative **purpose** from text, structure, and reliable materials.
# Strengths claimed - **Practical governance**: keeps law aligned with current realities. - **Moral continuity**: honors the Constitution’s broad commitments (e.g., equality, liberty).
# Common critiques - **Judicial discretion risk**: too much room for judges’ values. - **Democratic concerns**: adaptation can look like amendment without Article V.
# Close contrasts - Originalism urges fidelity to historical meaning. - Textualism resists elevating purpose over enacted words.
# Notes - Often paired with reliance on evolving precedent and tests reflecting “evolving standards.”