Which term refers to judges making rulings based on the Constitution's original meaning?

The term that accurately refers to judges making rulings based on the Constitution's original meaning is judicial restraint. This approach emphasizes that judges should interpret the Constitution in a manner consistent with its original intent and meaning as understood at the time it was ratified. It suggests that courts should defer to the decisions of the legislative and executive branches unless there is a clear violation of constitutional principles.

Judicial restraint advocates argue that the role of the judiciary is not to create new laws or reinterpret existing ones, but rather to uphold the Constitution as it was originally intended by the framers. This often involves a strict reading of the text and a reliance on historical context to guide decisions.

In contrast, judicial activism would encourage judges to take a more robust role in shaping laws and interpreting the Constitution in light of contemporary values and changing societal norms. Constitutional interpretation pertains broadly to methods of understanding the Constitution, whereas statutory interpretation specifically deals with how to understand laws passed by legislatures.