Difference between revisions of "Living Constitution"
AdkovTelmig (talk | contribs) |
AdkovTelmig (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | A '''living Constitution''' is one that changes based on perceptions of the changing views of the public. As a practical matter, it means the [[U.S. Constitution]] should be interpreted however a majority of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] feels. Such a constitution is often supported by conservatives who wish to abolish the very First Amendment by combining church and state into one all-powerful entity. In such a system, The Leader As Endowed By Our Lord God George W. Bush would be able to proclaim far-reaching, oil-rich lands as provinces of America | + | A '''living Constitution''' is one that changes based on perceptions of the changing views of the public. As a practical matter, it means the [[U.S. Constitution]] should be interpreted however a majority of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] feels. Such a constitution is often supported by conservatives who wish to abolish the very First Amendment by combining church and state into one all-powerful entity. In such a system, The Leader As Endowed By Our Lord God George W. Bush would be able to proclaim far-reaching, oil-rich lands as provinces of America by declaring illegal, but holy, wars on them. |
| − | |||
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. | 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. | ||
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Revision as of 16:43, September 20, 2007
A living Constitution is one that changes based on perceptions of the changing views of the public. As a practical matter, it means the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted however a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court feels. Such a constitution is often supported by conservatives who wish to abolish the very First Amendment by combining church and state into one all-powerful entity. In such a system, The Leader As Endowed By Our Lord God George W. Bush would be able to proclaim far-reaching, oil-rich lands as provinces of America by declaring illegal, but holy, wars on them.
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.