Originalism is the correct principle for interpreting the Constitution.

I apologize for forfeiting the previous round. If voters see fit, they should give conduct points to my opponent. I agree with the majority of YYW's points. What I disagree with is the conclusion YYW derives from them. I've tried to boil his argument down and this is what I have come up with: because objectivity is a target towards which legal theorists and judges aspire, Living Constitutionalism is therefore a valid school of thought. I agree with YYW's premise, that objectivity is a target towards which legal theorists and judges aspire, but disagree with his conclusion, that Living Constitutionalism is therefore valid. I actually already addressed this argument in Round 2. YYW offered no counter to it. The moment that YYW admits that objectivity is the goal that legal theorists and judges aspire to, YYW must admit that the meaning of the Constitution must be something prior to and independent of efforts to determine it. The implication of setting objectivity as the end of legal interpretation is that 1) there is something to be interpreted, 2) that something exists prior to the act of interpretation, and therefore 3) that something remains the same over time. YYW is absolutely correct that the determinations that particular judges ascribe to the Constitution change over time. But this does not mean that the Constitution or its meaning changes. As I explained in Round 2: When particular determinations of meaning give way to another, two implications necessarily follow: 1) that the second determination of meaning is more correct than the first determination, and 2) therefore both determinations of meaning are being judged and evaluated according to some metric that precedes both determinations. If an interpretation of the Constitution is to be called wrong, it must be in relation to something that precedes it. In fact, for an interpretation of the Constitution to be right, for the claim of rightness or wrongness to even be intelligible, there must be an objective meaning to the Constitution. If there is not an objective meaning to the Constitution, then we can never say that one interpretation or determination of meaning is better or more correct than any other. YYW's argument blurs the line between ontological objectivity and epistemic objectivity. Originalism claims that the Constitution's meaning must exist prior to and independent of attempts to determine it. This means that the Constitution's meaning is ontologically objective. It exists out there as something that we are trying to gain access to. The problem is that our perspective will always be limited and mediated by our particular social context which is itself always changing, so as a result our epistemic access to the Constitution's meaning will always be subjective. To put it another way, because we cannot step outside of our minds and understand precisely what the authors of the Constitution intended, the Constitution's meaning is not something we can determine with epistemic objectivity. Originalism never makes any claims that we have epistemic objectivity. Originalism makes a much weaker claim. It claims that the Constitution has an objective meaning even if we do not have access to that meaning. Originalism claims that our efforts to interpret the Constitution should aspire towards that objective meaning even if we cannot figure it out. Point is, originalism sets certain constrictions on interpretation. The reason Living Constitutionalism is incoherent is because if we allow that the Constitution's meaning (not its particular determinations but its actual objective meaning) expand or change over time, then it follows that the Constitution does not in actuality have any meaning. If the meaning of the Constitution is determined in the act of interpreting it, as Living Constitutionalism suggests, then we cannot say one interpretation is more correct than another because there is no metric by which to evaluate them. If no interpretation can be established or judged as better than another, then it follows that the Constitution has no meaning. This is why Living Constitutionalism as a theory is utterly incoherent. This is in fact why every theory other than Originalism is incoherent. I made all these arguments in Round 2 and they have yet to be addressed by my opponent. I await his response.