Originalism is a theory of constitutional interpretation which holds that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original public meaning it had at the time it was enacted. Proponents argue that this approach provides an objective, stable foundation for the law, preventing judges from imposing their own contemporary political values on the text. By sticking to the original meaning, they claim, the judiciary remains a 'neutral umpire' rather than a 'super-legislature.' This, they argue, is the only way to preserve the democratic legitimacy of the Constitution, as it ensures that changes to the fundamental law occur through the formal amendment process rather than judicial fiat. Opponents of originalism, often advocating for a 'living constitution' or a pragmatist approach, argue that the theory is both impractical and undesirable. They contend that the 'original meaning' of 18th-century phrases is often impossible to determine with certainty in a modern context. More importantly, they argue that the Constitution was written in broad, general terms precisely so that it could evolve to meet the challenges of an ever-changing society. They point to the fact that an originalist interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment might not have supported the desegregation of schools or the expansion of gender equality—results that are now considered foundational to American democracy. For these critics, the role of the judge is to apply the Constitution's enduring principles to the realities of the present day.