Die Verfassungsinterpretation am US-Supreme Court

Should judges be bound to the original meaning of a legal provision or should they have the scope to develop new laws when deciding on cases in constitutional law? This contrast characterises the debate on originalism and the living constitution in the US. This study reconstructs the academic debate as well as the stances of Supreme Court judges on it and asks whether and to what extent this contrast shapes the rulings and the political direction of the US Supreme Court. Relying on the insights of its first two parts, the study develops a system of adequately categorising judicial rationales. As a result of the case material analysed, it discovers a double strategy of reasoning in Supreme Court decisions, which cannot be politically classified clearly. Within this strategy, the contrast between originalism and the living constitution is of lesser importance.