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. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[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 18:19, 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.