<Ul> <Li> </Li> <Li> </Li> <Li> </Li> </Ul> <P> In United States constitutional interpretation, the living Constitution (or loose constructionism) is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes . The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases . </P> <P> While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories . First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary . The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document . Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that allowing judges to determine an ever - changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy . The primary alternative to the Living Constitution is most commonly described as originalism . </P> <P> Some supporters of the "living" method of interpretation, such as professors Michael Kammen and Bruce Ackerman refer to themselves as organicists . </P>

How did the founders create a constitution that could be adapted for the future
find me the text answering this question