As an observer of our legal system, which "school of thought" do you embrace?

Professor Epstein was through when writing "Written in Stone." He begins with "Fleshing out spare texts is, if not the critical question in modern constitutional law." The constitution is rock solid and written for a particular day and time. If the constitution was written in 2005 there would be some differences. Therefore, the constitutions should be fleshed out, but not to the point to change the entire meaning. Epstein also stated "the initial text sets the …

…morally wrong for judges twine the law to their belief. Many judges do not understand their role well enough to allow them to police themselves in regard to judicial interpretation. The author suggest the best way to interpret the constitution is by application of ancient principles. The ancient principles were basic, written in stone, and did not leave lea-way for misinterpretation. Therefore, judges need to be "loyal to the basic enterprise of interpreting timeless rules."