You may want to use Shazmo's consise references to Federal Law and State Law . According to Justices Black and Scalia, decisions are commanded by applying explicit constitutional language. But the meaning of some terms is elusive and the literal language may support a multiplicity of readings. When constitutional terms support a variety of readings, a judge may refer to the intentions of the founding fathers as an interpretative aid. But many perspectives were manifest in drafting, debating, and ratifying the constitution.
Advocates are likely to locate historical evidence supporting whatever argument they make.
The dominant theory of constitutional interpretation is to imagine how the founding fathers would decide the case. According to some, the framers intended to delegate intepretative power to future generations of lawmakers. Modern judicial decisions are based on precedent and decisions are legitimized by that lineage. Issues this Section. Intepretation with reference to literal meanings and historic figures reduces a judge's discretion.