Which method of interperting the constitution, ''original intent'' or ''living docuement'' do you think is more valid?

Scholars debate this one but in my opinion that inherent contradictions that exist for "original intent" make it invalid.

We've seen time and again Judges who espouse original intent are unable to reconcile either the realities of the founder's time (guns, in particular) or an understanding that the founder's got it wrong sometime (slavery, etc.)