Interpreting the Constitution as you see it is very difficult because when time changes, people change. What I mean by this statement is that different generations have different interpretations of what people believe the Constitution tells them they can do. Which leads people to become textualists, meaning Supreme Court justices try to decide that they can make laws about information, even though their job is just to interpret the laws. They believe that since the drafting of the Constitution in 1788, the Constitution no longer has the same meaning as it did at the time. On the other hand, there are people who believe that laws that arise from the use of the Constitution should be interpreted in the same way that judges did at the time. An example of a textualist person would be Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court and an originalist person is Supreme Court Justice Stephen Boyer. In this article, I compare and contrast these two judges to determine which person and which argument is right. The first article I compare is entitled: A question of interpretation: the federal courts and the law by Antonin Scalin. In this article, Scalia defines and defends the concept of texualism, or the belief that a text "should be interpreted reasonably, to contain all that it means fairly." Scalia insists that “words have a limited range of meanings, and no interpretation that goes beyond that range of meaning, and no interpretation that goes beyond that range is permitted.” Scalia says the purpose of the Constitution “is to prevent change – to entrench certain rights in such a way that future generations cannot easily take them away.” Later in the article, Scalia talks about what it means to be a... middle of paper ... which Constant was referring to. Breyer explained that things can be defined thematically and therefore declared his theme to be “active liberty” – which resonates throughout the Constitution. While on the other hand, Justice Antonin Scalia believes that a text must be interpreted strictly and not leniently; it must be interpreted reasonably, to contain all that it means fairly. Scalia also said that if this logic fails to produce what, in the view of the current Supreme Court, is the desirable result for the case at hand, then, like good common law judges, the court will distinguish its precedents, or restrict them, or if all else fails nullify them, so that the Constitution may mean. This is why I decided that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was right about his interpretation of the Constitution instead of Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia..