Text 1: Legal scholar Dr. Anna Foster studies originalism. "Constitutional interpretation should follow original meaning," Foster argues. "Judges should apply the law as written, not update it according to current values."
Text 2: Constitutional theorist Dr. David Wong defends living constitutionalism. "Foundational principles require evolving interpretation," Wong contends. "Framers couldn't anticipate modern technologies or social changes. Constitutional adaptation serves framers' deeper purposes."
What is the core disagreement between Foster and Wong?
Whether the constitution exists as a document
Whether constitutional meaning should remain fixed or evolve
Whether judges exist in the legal system
Whether framers had any intentions
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Foster wants "original meaning"—fixed interpretation. Wong wants "evolving interpretation" adapting to change. Fixed vs. living meaning is the core dispute.
- Evidence: Foster: original meaning; Wong: evolving interpretation.
- Reasoning: Static vs. dynamic approaches to constitutional meaning.
- Conclusion: Their disagreement centers on whether meaning should evolve.
Choice A is incorrect because both discuss the constitution. Choice C is incorrect because both discuss judicial interpretation. Choice D is incorrect because Wong appeals to framers' purposes.