<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> <Li> Prudentialism discourages judges from setting broad rules for possible future cases, and advises courts to play a limited role . </Li> <Li> Precedent is judges deciding a case by looking to the decision of a previous and similar case according to the legal principle of stare decisis, by finding a rule or principle in an earlier case to guide their judgment in a current case . </Li> <Li> Strict constructionism involves judges interpreting the text only as it was written; once a clear meaning has been established, there is no need for further analysis, based on this way, which advocates that judges should avoid drawing inferences from previous statutes or the constitution and instead focus on exactly what was written . For example, Justice Hugo Black argued that the First Amendment's wording in reference to certain civil rights that Congress shall make no law should mean exactly that: no law, no exceptions . </Li>

What are the two major ways of interpreting the constitution and how do they differ