Difference between revisions of "Living Constitution"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | A '''living Constitution''' (or sometimes known as an "[[Evolving constitution]]") is one that changes based on | + | 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]]''. |
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 | + | [[category:United States Constitution]] |
Revision as of 02:53, January 2, 2010
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.
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.