<Tr> <Td> </Td> <Td> This section needs additional citations for verification . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed . (February 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) </Td> </Tr> <P> Two of the arguments in support of the concept of a "living Constitution" is the concept that the Constitution itself is silent on the matter of constitutional interpretation . Proponents of the living Constitution assert that the Constitutional framers, most of whom were trained lawyers and legal theorists, were certainly aware of these debates; they also would have known the confusion that not providing a clear interpretive method would cause . Had the framers meant for future generations to interpret the Constitution in a specific manner, they could have indicated such within the Constitution itself . The lack of guidance within the text of the Constitution suggests, therefore, that either: a) there was no such consensus, or b) the framers never intended any fixed method of constitutional interpretation . </P> <P> Relating to the pragmatic argument, it is further argued that if judges were denied the opportunity to reflect on changes to modern society in interpreting the scope of Constitutional rights, the resulting Constitution either would not reflect current mores and values, or would necessitate a constant amendment process to reflect our changing society . </P> <P> Another defense of the Living Constitution is based in viewing the Constitution not merely as law, but as a source of foundational concepts for the governing of society . Of course, laws must be fixed and clear so that people can understand and abide by them on a daily basis . But if the Constitution is more than a set of laws, if it provides guiding concepts which themselves will in turn provide the foundations for laws, then the costs and benefits of such an entirely fixed meaning are very different . The reason for this is simple: if a society locks itself into a previous generation's interpretive ideas, it will wind up either constantly attempting to change the Constitution to reflect changes, or simply scrapping the Constitution altogether . While we remain bound by the rights and powers provided in the Constitution, thus, the scope those rights and powers should account for society's present experiences . "Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., wrote in 1914:' Provisions of the Constitution of the United States are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form, but are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil . Their significance is not to be gathered simply from the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth ."' </P>

The debate over the role of the supreme court in the interpretation of the constitution