MSI Press Blog

  People often ask, “Do you translate into English when you’re listening to or speaking another language?” The short answer is no. Maybe I did once—back when I was still learning to trust the foreign language to carry meaning on its own. But now? No. Not even subconsciously. I know this because interpretation—real-time, oral translation—is not my strength. My brain doesn’t want to rock between two languages. It wants to stay rooted in one. And when I’m in that language, I’m all in. A potent example: years ago, I traveled with a group of U.S. Senators’ wives to the Soviet Union, serving as their liaison to the USSR government—particularly to the republic peace committees and the national women’s committee. I also helped informally as an interpreter when needed, though interpretation was never my forte. During a tour of Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), the group stood before a monument to World War II. The guide explained the history of the Nazi blockade of the city. I turned to...

  The Constitution is not a self-executing document. It doesn’t enforce itself, explain itself, or evolve on its own. Its power lies in interpretation—how courts, scholars, lawmakers, and citizens read and apply its words across time. But interpretation is never neutral. It reflects values, fears, and aspirations. And when extremist movements claim to know the “true” meaning of the Constitution—often without historical context or legal grounding—they risk turning a living document into a rigid ideology. 🧠 Originalism vs. Living Constitution Two dominant schools of thought shape constitutional interpretation: Originalism : The idea that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning at the time it was written. Living Constitution : The belief that the Constitution evolves with society, and its meaning must adapt to contemporary realities. Both approaches have merit—and tension. But extremism often distorts originalism into dogma, ignoring centuries of jurispru...

  The Constitution is not a self-executing document. It doesn’t enforce itself, explain itself, or evolve on its own. Its power lies in interpretation—how courts, scholars, lawmakers, and citizens read and apply its words across time. But interpretation is never neutral. It reflects values, fears, and aspirations. And when extremist movements claim to know the “true” meaning of the Constitution—often without historical context or legal grounding—they risk turning a living document into a rigid ideology. 🧠 Originalism vs. Living Constitution Two dominant schools of thought shape constitutional interpretation: Originalism : The idea that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning at the time it was written. Living Constitution : The belief that the Constitution evolves with society, and its meaning must adapt to contemporary realities. Both approaches have merit—and tension. But extremism often distorts originalism into dogma, ignoring centuries of jurispru...

  The Constitution is not a self-executing document. It doesn’t enforce itself, explain itself, or evolve on its own. Its power lies in interpretation—how courts, scholars, lawmakers, and citizens read and apply its words across time. But interpretation is never neutral. It reflects values, fears, and aspirations. And when extremist movements claim to know the “true” meaning of the Constitution—often without historical context or legal grounding—they risk turning a living document into a rigid ideology. 🧠 Originalism vs. Living Constitution Two dominant schools of thought shape constitutional interpretation: Originalism : The idea that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning at the time it was written. Living Constitution : The belief that the Constitution evolves with society, and its meaning must adapt to contemporary realities. Both approaches have merit—and tension. But extremism often distorts originalism into dogma, ignoring centuries of jurispru...