Changes

He came to the conclusion that "the final judicial interpretation of the United States constitution would in all cases be made by that court which ... has shown greater capacity than perhaps any other judicial body to treat the constitution of the United States as an instrument ... unchanging provisions are adaptable to the infinite variety of the changing conditions of our national life".<ref name=goodnow />

He came to the conclusion that "the final judicial interpretation of the United States constitution would in all cases be made by that court which ... has shown greater capacity than perhaps any other judicial body to treat the constitution of the United States as an instrument ... unchanging provisions are adaptable to the infinite variety of the changing conditions of our national life".<ref name=goodnow />

Other progressives have also had a hand in the development of this concept, such as [[Louis Brandeis]] with his [[Louis Brandeis#Brandeis_Brief|Brandeis Brief]].  Brandeis would later catalog some of his thoughts on what had occurred.<ref>[https://archive.org/details/TheLivingLawLouisBrandeis ''The Living Law''],[[Louis Brandeis]], ''Illinois Law Review'', February 16, 1916</ref>

Other progressives have also had a hand in the development of this concept, such as [[Louis Brandeis]] with his [[Louis Brandeis#Brandeis Brief|Brandeis Brief]].  Brandeis would later catalog some of his thoughts on what had occurred.<ref>[https://archive.org/details/TheLivingLawLouisBrandeis ''The Living Law''],[[Louis Brandeis]], ''Illinois Law Review'', February 16, 1916</ref>

===Phrase===

===Phrase===

==Usage==

==Usage==

===In Public View===

===In Public View===

One of the first times that the concept of a "living constitution" was brought out for public consumption was during the 2000 election, almost 90 years after it came into existence.  On March 2nd, 2000, then Presidential Candidate [[Al Gore]] said the following: <ref>[http://articles.latimes.com/2000/mar/02/news/ss-4678 On The Record - Candidates Bill Bradley and Al Gore squared off Wednesday night, sharing their visions of America's future], [[Los Angeles Times]], March 2nd, 2000</ref>

One of the first times that the concept of a "living constitution" was brought out for public consumption was during the 2000 election, almost 90 years after it came into existence.  On March 2, 2000, then Presidential Candidate [[Al Gore]] said the following:<ref>[http://articles.latimes.com/2000/mar/02/news/ss-4678 On The Record - Candidates Bill Bradley and Al Gore squared off Wednesday night, sharing their visions of America's future], [[Los Angeles Times]], March 2nd, 2000</ref>

<blockquote>Gore: I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people. The right of privacy, just to take one example, was found by Justice Harry Blackmun in the Constitution even though the precise words are not there.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Gore: I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people. The right of privacy, just to take one example, was found by Justice Harry Blackmun in the Constitution even though the precise words are not there.</blockquote>

While many progressives disfavor openly using the phrase ''living constitution'', there are a handful who are defiant<ref name=tnralive>[https://newrepublic.com/article/75628/its-alive It's Alive], [[The New Republic]]</ref> with regard to keeping it in public view.  David A. Strauss,<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/strauss David A. Strauss]</ref> a professor of Law at [[Harvard]] who has argued 18 cases in front of the Supreme Court, defines the ''living constitution'' this way:

While many progressives disfavor openly using the phrase ''living constitution'', there are a handful who are defiant<ref name=tnralive>[https://newrepublic.com/article/75628/its-alive It's Alive], [[The New Republic]]</ref> with regard to keeping it in public view.  David A. Strauss,<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/strauss David A. Strauss]</ref> a professor of Law at [[Harvard]] who has argued 18 cases in front of the Supreme Court, defines the ''living constitution'' this way:

<blockquote>A "''living constitution''" is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=OYxoAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 The Living Constitution], by David A. Strauss, page 1</ref><ref name=tnralive /></blockquote>

<blockquote>A "''living constitution''" is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended.<ref name=tnralive /><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=OYxoAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 The Living Constitution], by David A. Strauss, page 1</ref></blockquote>

===On the Court===

===On the Court===

[[Image:SCOTUS.jpg|300px|right|thumb]]

[[Image:SCOTUS.jpg|300px|right|thumb]]

====Explicit====

====Explicit====

One of the first times the phrase "living Constitution" was expressly used inside the court room was by the [[liberal]] four-Justice dissent in ''[[Rummel v. Estelle]]''<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/263/case.html Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980)]</ref>. It has been embraced by the left side of the Court in numerous rulings since.

One of the first times the phrase "living Constitution" was expressly used inside the court room was by the [[liberal]] four-Justice dissent in ''[[Rummel v. Estelle]]''.<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/263/case.html Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980)]</ref> It has been embraced by the left side of the Court in numerous rulings since.

====Implicit====

====Implicit====

What effect a comparison of countries' constitutions will have on the concept of a ''living constitution'' has not yet been determined, since some constitutions are more solid than others.

What effect a comparison of countries' constitutions will have on the concept of a ''living constitution'' has not yet been determined, since some constitutions are more solid than others.

==See Also==

==See also==

{|background="none" width="100%" border="0"

{|background="none" width="100%" border="0"

|valign="top"|

|valign="top"|

{{reflist|3}}

{{reflist|3}}

==External Links==

==External links==

* [http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119457845606187586 A 'Living' Constitution and Original Intent], [[Wall Street Journal]]

* [http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119457845606187586 A 'Living' Constitution and Original Intent], [[Wall Street Journal]]

* [http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/11/the-birth-of-the-administrative-state-where-it-came-from-and-what-it-means-for-limited-government The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government], [[Heritage Foundation]]

* [http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/11/the-birth-of-the-administrative-state-where-it-came-from-and-what-it-means-for-limited-government The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government], [[Heritage Foundation]]

[[Category:United States Supreme Court]]

[[Category:United States Supreme Court]]

[[category:United States Constitution]]

[[Category:United States Constitution]]

[[Category:Judicial activism]]

[[Category:Judicial activism]]

[[Category:Progressive Era]]

[[Category:Progressive Era]]