Difference between revisions of "Living Constitution"
m (Link) |
(Usage) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A '''living Constitution''' (or sometimes known as an "[[Evolving constitution]]") is one that changes based on the changing values of the people. As a practical matter, it means the [[U.S. Constitution]] should be interpreted however a majority of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] feels. This view of the Constitution is closely associated with [[judicial activism]] and is responsible for some of the most dangerous rulings in history, especially ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''. | A '''living Constitution''' (or sometimes known as an "[[Evolving constitution]]") is one that changes based on the changing values of the people. As a practical matter, it means the [[U.S. Constitution]] should be interpreted however a majority of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] feels. This view of the Constitution is closely associated with [[judicial activism]] and is responsible for some of the most dangerous rulings in history, especially ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==History== | ==History== | ||
| Line 11: | Line 9: | ||
{{cquote|All that progressives ask or desire is permission-in an era when “development," "evolution," is the scientific word-to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.<ref>{{cite web |title=Woodrow Wilson Asks “What Is Progress?” |url=http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/woodrow-wilson-asks-what-is-progress |work=[[Heritage Foundation]]}}</ref>}} | {{cquote|All that progressives ask or desire is permission-in an era when “development," "evolution," is the scientific word-to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.<ref>{{cite web |title=Woodrow Wilson Asks “What Is Progress?” |url=http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/woodrow-wilson-asks-what-is-progress |work=[[Heritage Foundation]]}}</ref>}} | ||
| − | Other progressives have also had a hand in the development of this concept, such as [[Louis Brandeis]] with his [[Louis Brandeis#Brandeis_Brief|Brandeis Brief]]. Brandeis would later catalog some of his thoughts on what had occurred.<ref>The Living Law, Illinois Law Review, February 16, 1916</ref> | + | Other progressives have also had a hand in the development of this concept, such as [[Louis Brandeis]] with his [[Louis Brandeis#Brandeis_Brief|Brandeis Brief]]. Brandeis would later catalog some of his thoughts on what had occurred.<ref>The Living Law,, [[Louis Brandeis]] Illinois Law Review, February 16, 1916</ref> |
===Phrase=== | ===Phrase=== | ||
The full phrase "Living constitution" would not appear until 1927 with the publication of the book "''The Living constitution, a consideration of the realities and legends of our fundamental law''", by Howard Lee McBain. | The full phrase "Living constitution" would not appear until 1927 with the publication of the book "''The Living constitution, a consideration of the realities and legends of our fundamental law''", by Howard Lee McBain. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Usage== | ||
| + | The phrase "living Constitution" was expressly used by the [[liberal]] four-Justice dissent in ''Rummel v. Estelle'', 445 U.S. 263 (1980), and it has been implicitly embraced by the left side of the Court in numerous rulings. | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
Revision as of 21:35, July 13, 2015
A living Constitution (or sometimes known as an "Evolving constitution") is one that changes based on the changing values of the people. As a practical matter, it means the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted however a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court feels. This view of the Constitution is closely associated with judicial activism and is responsible for some of the most dangerous rulings in history, especially Roe v. Wade.
History
Concept
The first progressive to develop the view that the Constitution is a living and breathing document was Woodrow Wilson. He wrote in his book Constitutional Government in the United States that:
| “ | Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Fortunately, the definitions and prescriptions of our constitutional law, though conceived in the Newtonian spirit and upon the Newtonian principle, are sufficiently broad and elastic to allow for the play of life and circumstance.[1] | ” |
He further expanded on this idea during the United States presidential election, 1912, as a part of his "New Freedom" program that:
| “ | All that progressives ask or desire is permission-in an era when “development," "evolution," is the scientific word-to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.[2] | ” |
Other progressives have also had a hand in the development of this concept, such as Louis Brandeis with his Brandeis Brief. Brandeis would later catalog some of his thoughts on what had occurred.[3]
Phrase
The full phrase "Living constitution" would not appear until 1927 with the publication of the book "The Living constitution, a consideration of the realities and legends of our fundamental law", by Howard Lee McBain.
Usage
The phrase "living Constitution" was expressly used by the liberal four-Justice dissent in Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), and it has been implicitly embraced by the left side of the Court in numerous rulings.
See Also
References
- ↑ (1908) Constitutional Government in the United States, 57.
- ↑ Woodrow Wilson Asks “What Is Progress?”. Heritage Foundation.
- ↑ The Living Law,, Louis Brandeis Illinois Law Review, February 16, 1916