Difference between revisions of "Living Constitution"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
SkipJohnson (talk | contribs) |
m (Reverted edits by SkipJohnson (Talk); changed back to last version by HelpJazz) |
||
| 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. | 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. | ||
| − | 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 17:37, 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.
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.