Relying on the letter of the amendments would therefore be retrogressive and be a threat to justice in the contemporary environment (Exploring Constitutional Conflicts, n.d.). Opinion that the constitution is an outline of regulations from which actual rules should be derived is another justification of the non-originalist perspective to interpretation of the constitution, is valid because of the diverse needs that cannot be outlined and provided for in a legal document, and validates non-originalist theory. Existence of minor variations in phenomena explains this (Schults, 2009). In addition, the legal system allows for independence in judicial decisions if facts of a case justify such independence. Applications of case laws, distinguishing precedents in particular and especially based on difference in facts to a case, explains the need for relativism in interpretation of laws. Based on this acceptable practice in the judicial system, and variation in facts on cases, it becomes a necessity for interpretation of the constitution to consider the changes (Antoine, 2008). Interpretation of the second amendment is actually a good example because the current environment, with security personnel, undermines needs for arms as provided for by the amendment. The position for a non-originalist perspective is therefore rational and reliant on contemporary facts.
Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. (n.d.). Theories of constitutional interpretation. University of Missouri-Kansas City. Retrieved from: