Ways of Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution

The goal of the work is to make an inquiry into the approaches taken by American federal judges in order to interpret the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, it addresses several problems: 1) was there a particular way of interpretation of the Constitution envisioned by the Framers and the Founders of the U.S.?; 2) what are the requirements for a set of principles to be considered a way of interpretation?; 3) what types of ways of interpretation are there?; 4) what are the conservative ways of interpretation?; 5) what are the liberal ways of interpretation?; 6) how do the justices apply the different ways of interpretation in practice?; 7) what are the legal ideologies of the Supreme Court justices of the current court?; 8) has there been any recent developments? Having researched the above-mentioned problems, the work came to the following conclusions: 1) Even though the Constitution does not directly mandate a particular way of interpretation, its critics and supporters at the time of the adoption wanted it to be interpreted according to its text and only changed through the Amendment process; 2) In this work, for a set of principles to be a way of interpretation, it should meet at least one of the requirements: have consistent application in the courts and/or have a scientific foundation; 3) the work divides the ways of interpretation into two groups: conservative and liberal; 4) conservative ways of interpretation aim to follow the original meaning of the Constitution. They are originalism and textualism; 5) Liberal ways of interpretation pay more attention to the current societal goals and disregard the original meaning; 6) Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) is a good example of how the justices apply different ways of interpretation; 7) Right now 4 justices are liberals, 1 justice takes different sides, and 4 are conservatives; 8) after the death of Justice Scalia the debate about the interpretation reinvigorated and was an important part of 2016 Presidential election.