“How does the Supreme Court decide what the Constitution means?”

 Chapter 6 briefly discusses interpretivists and strict constructionists. For more discussion on the issue read “How does the Supreme Court decide what the Constitution means?” How does a constructionist (originalist) interpret the Constitution compared to a judicial interpretivist (non-originalist)? Do you think the Constitution should be interpreted literally or is it an evolving document that needs to be interpreted differently over time? Why?