Difference between revisions of "Living Constitution"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ((The Evil in it)) | ||
| + | |||
| + | You should also be aware of the evilness in a living constitution, and all liberals. | ||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court]] | [[Category:United States Supreme Court]] | ||
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Revision as of 15:23, October 8, 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.
((The Evil in it))
You should also be aware of the evilness in a living constitution, and all liberals.