***urgent*** if you were a justice sitting on the supreme court and were asked to interpret the meaning of the constitution, what would you do? would you feel like you needed to think historically and imagine what the founding fathers would think of a case or would it be more important to consider current culture, values, and changes in the way the world works? explain your answer with 2 supporting ideas.

If I was a justice sitting on the Supreme Court, I would consider a few things when looking at a law to determine its constitutionality.

First, it would be important to note that cases are not brought against articles in the Constitution.

What the Court does, is review legislative or governmental action to determine whether or not they are constitutionally permissible.

SO, the first step is to determine what the law means. Some jurists believe that you can do this merely by reading it but I believe that it is also important to go into the legislative record to see what the legislators were debating about when they chose one word over another.

From there, one needs to consider what the Constitution says. Is it obvious on its face? Does a word mean something differently today?

This is important as there is no way that the Founding Fathers would have ever conceived of Uber, a common source of Federal litigation. Likewise, the Founding Fathers would have never conceived of a tunnel that might go between states with a hyperloop subway, as Elon Musk keeps promising.

So, a jurist would need to understand what their parameters were under the Constitution and what the legislators meant when they wrote the law and go from there in determine what the best outcome under the law is for the country.

(Sorry this isn't a clearer answer. Your teacher asked you to answer a question that is way too simple for how complex the matter actually is. No judge sits and thinks about the framers.)

"they had a large area of land that they owned."