Monday evening, a controversy as old as the Constitution itself was sparked once again in a heated debate between the Penn State College Republicans and College Democrats.

Students packed the HUB-Robeson Center Flex Theatre on Monday to hear the two major Penn State political organizations make their cases for originalism or the “living Constitution.”

After the debaters introduced themselves by name and favorite amendment, both sides made opening arguments then offered answers to a series of questions from the moderator.

Throughout the hour long debate, the Democrats emphasized the need for an evolving interpretation of the Constitution to reflect the present attitudes and values of the American people. Their opponents argued that originalism — interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning — ensures limited government and the protection of individual freedom.

Answering the question of how the parties’ respective frameworks benefit the country, Allison Dombach of College Republicans said the living Constitution view puts Americans at risk for losing their rights to voters or activist courts.

“The Constitution was written so the rights of the American people would not be dependent on a fickle electorate,” Dombach (sophomore-secondary social studies education) said.

The Democrats said the Framers intentionally left “vague” phrases such as “general welfare” and “due process of law” in the Constitution so it could remain relevant for future generations.

College Democrats Chief of Staff Jacob Klipstein said the country needs a living Constitution to account for an “expanding definition of ‘We the People.’” He claimed that the amendment process moves too slowly to keep pace with social progress, using the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment as an example.

“Is it fair to ask [justices] to interpret the Constitution the way it was before?” Klipstein (sophomore-political science) said. “The justices decided the tide of the populace has changed. As society changed, the justices found a right to privacy.”

The debate then moved into each side’s supporting evidence from Supreme Court cases or the Founders themselves.

College Democrats Secretary Kelsey Denny cited the overturning of the pro-Japanese internment Korematsu v. U.S. as proof of the living Constitution’s superiority, adding that originalism prevents judges from fixing erroneous past decisions.

“Thanks to originalist interpretation, African-Americans had to drink at separate fountains,” Denny (junior-political science and global and international studies) said.

In the Republicans’ response, Aidan Mattis said originalist judges can still right past mistakes in constitutional interpretation, and that originalism is unrelated to upholding precedents. He presented D.C. v. Heller as an example of strong originalist judicial opinion, since the court upheld the individual right to own firearms.

For the last moderator question of the night, the Democrats and Republicans discussed the public’s role in judicial interpretation of the Constitution.

While the Republicans said the people contribute only by electing Senators to confirm federal judges, the Democrats defended the position that judges should consider how to help the people. Denny said the Supreme Court listened to “cries for justice” in Obergefell v. Hodges, which created the national right to same-sex marriage.

“The government serves the people,” Democrat Lexy Pathikal said. “They’re supposed to step in and help, not stay back...we shouldn’t be using the same language from the 1800s.”

Mattis (junior-medieval studies) countered that popular opinion is often uninformed, and said that the people should not write the highest law in the land.

The closing statements followed, with proponents of originalism and the living Constitution summarizing their cases. To finish the night, debaters fielded questions from the audience.

“If the Constitution was meant to be loosely interpreted, the Founders would have stopped at ‘We the People’ and the preamble,” Mattis said. “The polarized climate we have today is because the government didn’t stop at doing what it was supposed to do.”