Andy M. answered • 11/30/19
Trained historian with extensive training in American History
There are two main schools of thought, while contribute to Constitutional debates. Some see the Constitution as a document that is meant to be interpreted. This interpretation is referred to as a loose interpretation. Supporters of this view see the Constitution as a "living document" whose meaning changes with the times and based on necessity. Others see it as something that is set in stone and cannot be interpreted. Those with this view take a so-called strict interpretation (Note there are other terms for both of these groups).
The U.S. Constitution is one of the shortest constitutions in the world. As such, it is extremely vague at times. This has led to a wide divide in interpretations of the Constitution. While strict interpretation supports claim to be just that, you will often find that they too will interpret the Constitution when it is to their benefit or to support their own opinions of the law. Therefore, even within these two schools, varying political difference causes significant debate and discussion. This is why the Judicial Branch hold the power of Judicial Review, in which they can interpret the law and determine if any law is "Constitutional" or "Unconstitutional." It is important to note that Judicial Review is widely accepted by Americans, despite it being an interpreted power of the Judicial Branch that is not explicitly stated in the US Constitution (See US Supreme Court Case: Marbury v. Madison).
