Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect, rollback
9,147
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 35:
Line 35: + + + + + Line 42:
Line 47: − +
Living Constitution vs Original Intent
==Debate==
==Debate==
===Living Constitution vs Original Intent===
{{main|Originalism}}
Those who look at the Constitution similarly to other legal documents or a contract, are often times called or refer to themselves as ''originalists'' or ''strict constructionists''. Those who look at the Constitution as a living document often times refer to themselves as ''Legal Pragmatists''.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/2011/10/09/141188564/a-matter-of-interpretation-justices-open-up Justices Get Candid About The Constitution], [[NPR]]</ref>
===In Support===
===In Support===
Supporters of the concept argue that the ''living constitution'' is one that changes based on the changing values of the people. Some proponents point to the fact that there are many places of silence on many issues within the Constitution itself. Others, such as [[Cass Sunstein]], a scholar at [[Harvard]], argues that the Constitution does not come with an instruction manual.
Supporters of the concept argue that the ''living constitution'' is one that changes based on the changing values of the people. Some proponents point to the fact that there are many places of silence on many issues within the Constitution itself. Others, such as [[Cass Sunstein]], a scholar at [[Harvard]], argues that the Constitution does not come with an instruction manual.
===Disfavor===
===Disfavor===
Critics of the concept, sometimes called ''originalists'' or ''strict constructionists'', point to the importance of the meaning and definition of words. Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] made the following point:
Critics of the concept point to the importance of the meaning and definition of words. Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] made the following point:
<blockquote>A mere change in public opinion since the adoption of the Constitution, unaccompanied by a constitutional amendment, should not change the meaning of the Constitution. A merely temporary majoritarian groundswell should not abrogate some individual liberty truly protected by the Constitution.<ref>[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf The Notion of a Living Constitution] (PDF), [[William Rehnquist]]</ref></blockquote>
<blockquote>A mere change in public opinion since the adoption of the Constitution, unaccompanied by a constitutional amendment, should not change the meaning of the Constitution. A merely temporary majoritarian groundswell should not abrogate some individual liberty truly protected by the Constitution.<ref>[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf The Notion of a Living Constitution] (PDF), [[William Rehnquist]]</ref></blockquote>