The correct interpretation of legal, as well as political, texts has long been debated. But, only one interpretation accounts for individualism, which allows citizens to yield ultimate authority; meanwhile, every other interpretation subscribes to the wretched idea of collectivism, which yields power to the state. The former, and most misunderstood, is fostered upon the values found in the constitution, which describes unalienable rights given to every citizen by god; whilst, the latter views the constitution as the living, and open to interpretation.

It is, therefore, the opinion of myself, but also, most notably, Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, that the former, that being the textualist interpretation, is the correct way of viewing the United States Constitution. To prove my argument and understand the textualist interpretation, I will try my best to explain the analysis, then dispel with its criticisms. First, textualists apply the rule of law as the founders intended it to be applied, with all of its blemishes and imperfections; while, leaving contemporary issues, ones the founders may have been blind to, in the hands of ordinary citizens on the state and local levels. It is therefore disingenuous to suggest that textualism is an old, barbaric interpretation method. Such accusations are baseless, and leave us no choice but to question the motives of the accusers.

Textualism is the MOST progressive and legal interpretation method. No other interpretation method, at least to my knowledge, gives ultimate authority on the most contemporary and consequential decisions to the people. It is the more self-described "progressive" interpretation methods that leave states forced to enforce laws they believe, at the best are asinine, and at the worst, unconstitutional. To believers of this progressive interpretation, those citizens are not representative of the entire populous, and therefore should not have their voices heard.

This is morally repulsive. It is also a major reason as to why we inhabit a constitutional republic and not a democracy; why each state selects its own representatives, and why the electoral college represents the minority rather than the majority. The founders would be appalled at the idea that some citizens ought to be represented, while others ought not to be. But, this is irrelevant to the ideologically possessed progressive Judge who believes that history should be irrelevant in the determination of future policy and that unalienable rights do not exist, or at least that they are not as important as whatever their loose definition of what constitutes "progress" is.

It is truly a shame that a textualist interpretation, one that protects the right of the people and limits the power of the state, is not viewed as being progressive. It seems to me that the very word "progress" has been bastardized by the far-left, and is now being used as a hammer to hurt political opponents who do not subscribe to their collectivist ideology. We, the civil members of our society, must recognize this and return to the word "progress" its real definition. We can not allow progressive Judges, determined to re-write history and insert their own subjective interpretations of legal texts into law, control the domain of language.