Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect, rollback
9,147
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 15:
Line 15: − + + + + + + + + + − +
Usage, In Public View, Al Gore quote
==Usage==
==Usage==
===Explicit===
===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>
<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>
This 8 decades, nearly century-long lack of disclosure to the wider public leaves the impression that the idea is entirely new.
===On the Court===
====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====
The courts have worked under the idea that the Constitution is living and breathing, long before announcing it. As early as 1926, in ''Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.'', the courts held:
The courts have worked under the idea that the Constitution is living and breathing, long before announcing it. As early as 1926, in ''Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.'', the courts held:
{{cquote|Regulations the wisdom, necessity and validity of which, as applied to existing conditions, are so apparent that they are now uniformly sustained a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive. Such regulations are sustained, under the complex conditions of our day, for reasons analogous to those which justify traffic regulations, which, before the advent of automobiles and rapid transit street railways, would have been condemned as fatally arbitrary and unreasonable. And in this there is no inconsistency, for, while the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world, it is impossible that it should be otherwise. But although a degree of elasticity is thus imparted not to the meaning, but to the application of constitutional principles, statutes and ordinances which, after giving due weight to the new conditions, are found clearly not to conform to the Constitution of course must fall.<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/365/case.html Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)]</ref>}}
{{cquote|Regulations the wisdom, necessity and validity of which, as applied to existing conditions, are so apparent that they are now uniformly sustained a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive. Such regulations are sustained, under the complex conditions of our day, for reasons analogous to those which justify traffic regulations, which, before the advent of automobiles and rapid transit street railways, would have been condemned as fatally arbitrary and unreasonable. And in this there is no inconsistency, for, while the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world, it is impossible that it should be otherwise. But although a degree of elasticity is thus imparted not to the meaning, but to the application of constitutional principles, statutes and ordinances which, after giving due weight to the new conditions, are found clearly not to conform to the Constitution of course must fall.<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/365/case.html Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)]</ref>}}