<Li> Balancing happens when judges weigh one set of interests or rights against an opposing set, typically used to make rulings in First Amendment cases . For example, cases involving freedom of speech sometimes require justices to make a distinction between legally permissible speech and speech that can be restricted or banned for, say, reasons of safety, and the task then is for justices to balance these conflicting claims . The balancing approach was criticized by Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter who argued that the Constitution gives no guidance about how to weigh or measure divergent interests . </Li> <Li> Doctrinalism considers how various parts of the Constitution have been "shaped by the Court's own jurisprudence", according to Finn . </Li> <Li> Founders' Intent involves judges trying to gauge the intentions of the authors of the Constitution . Problems can arise when judges try to determine which particular Founders or Framers to consult, as well as trying to determine what they meant based on often sparse and incomplete documentation . </Li> <Li> Originalism involves judges trying to apply the "original" meanings of different constitutional provisions . To determine the original meaning, a constitutional provision is interpreted in its original context, i.e. the historical, literary, and political context of the framers . From that interpretation, the underlying principle is derived which is then applied to the contemporary situation . Former Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia believed that the text of the constitution should mean the same thing today as it did when it had been written . A report in the Washington Post suggested that originalism was the "view that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning--that is, the meaning it had at the time of its enactment ." "Meaning" based on original principles . </Li>

Constitutional interpretation (2 schools of thought)