During their tenures on the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer adhered to original meaning and consequentialist views of constitutional interpretation, respectively. What are the pros and cons to each of these methods? Which method of review do you think is best suited to consider the questions that come before the Supreme Court? Why? How might those Justices consider different components of Carter & Burke's "Four Elements of Legal Reasoning?" Be sure to adequately address all parts of the prompt.