First, a "strict constitution" of national law, which upholds the belief that the states are vested with ultimate governmental authority, while the federal government should only have secondary authority. Second, a less strict, more federalist position, which maintains that the Constitution, due to a broad interpretation, hints toward implied powers in the central government. The second view was especially prominent from 1801 to 1835, under chief justice John Marshall (Armstrong and Woodward 210). Under Marshall, the case of Marbury vs. Madison (1803)involved a contested appointment by the predecessor of then Secretary of State James Madison. The Court held that an act of Congress in conflict with the Constitution was void and that the Supreme Court possessed the power to declare if such a conflict existed. This decision set the precedent for what is known today as judicial review, and provides the Court with a means of checking the legislature (Armstrong and Woodward 214). It is a common belief that no body of doctrine, such as the Constitution, is ever fully developed at the time of its completion. With an ever changing society, it is apparent that the Constitution must transform along with society through interpretations of provisions to the original text. This distinction is put in the hands of the Supreme Court justices who are forced to confront circumstantial changes and new situations of modern times quite frequently. They are expected to reshape the doctrine in compliance with the original ideas of the Constitution, or "the intentions of the Framers", to ensure that new provisions do not deprive man of the right to govern himself (Bork 513).
Since the birth of the United States, Americans have formed an unbreakable habit of evolving economic, political, philosophical, and social questions into lawsuits. It is because of this habit that the Supreme Court is often the eventual resting place for a societal issue (Brennan 517). Such situations are prime examples of how the Constitution displays qualities of a "living" document. Despite the fact that the original text is over two hundred years old, the document, through the interpretation of the Supreme Court, is still able to consistently shape public policy at will.
Although people argue that the Constitution is irrelevant today because it doesn't properly define the goals of American government, the Constitution has not become irrelevant, and it is still the driving force behind our government. American's idea of rights are shaped daily by the Bill of Rights and the acts that Congress is prohibited to amend.