Which method of interpreting the constitution, “original intent” or “living document,” do you think is more valid? use what you know about these methods to defend your opinion.

To answer this question, you must understand both terms.

1) "Original intent"- This concept revolves around the idea that individuals interpreting the constitution in today's society must consider what the original founding fathers were trying to do with these laws.

2)" Living document"- This is the concept that the interpretation of the constitution will constantly evolve as society changes.

I would say the "living document" argument is stronger. This is because the founding fathers made it so that the US Constitution can be changed later on. Adding amendments to the Constitution shows that this is supposed to be a living document, that constantly changes.

Another reason why the "living document" concept is stronger is due to the fact that it can adapt to today's society. Most likely, the founding fathers couldn't have predicted the technology and social media we have today. However, we need a document that can adapt to this society in order to determine what is or isn't protected free speech. The "living document" argument allows us to do that.

Explanation:

in 1897, pershing became a tactical officer at west point, and that's where he was given the nickname "black jack." pershing's first name is "john," for which "jack" is a nickname, and he was a white man who commanded black troops. hence "black jack".

d definitly is not