Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect, rollback
9,147
edits
Changes
→Concept: Croly, Goodnow
He further expanded on this idea during the [[United States presidential election, 1912]], as a part of his "New Freedom" program that:
He further expanded on this idea during the [[United States presidential election, 1912]], as a part of his "New Freedom" program that:
<blockquote>All that progressives ask or desire is permission-in an era when “development," "evolution," is the scientific word-to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.<ref>{{cite web |title=Woodrow Wilson Asks “What Is Progress?” |url=http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/woodrow-wilson-asks-what-is-progress |work=[[Heritage Foundation]]}}</ref><ref>[http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2016/05/05/editorial/uncategorized/wilson-pave-road-hell/ Wilson paved the road to hell]</ref></blockquote>
<blockquote>All that progressives ask or desire is permission-in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word-to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.<ref>{{cite web |title=Woodrow Wilson Asks "What Is Progress?" |url=http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/woodrow-wilson-asks-what-is-progress |work=[[Heritage Foundation]]}}</ref><ref>[http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2016/05/05/editorial/uncategorized/wilson-pave-road-hell/ Wilson paved the road to hell]</ref></blockquote>
[[Herbert Croly]], another early and influential leader of progressive thought, wrote in his book [[The Promise of American Life]] of the opportunity that the Federal judiciary offered for altering the immutability of the Constitution:<ref name=twilight>[https://books.google.com/books?id=gXVGAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA135 The American State from the Civil War to the New Deal: The Twilight of Constitutionalism and the Triumph of Progressivism]</ref>
<blockquote>The only Americans who hold important official positions for life are the judges of the Federal courts. Radical democrats have always protested against this exception, which, nevertheless, can be permitted without any infringement of democratic principles. The peculiar position of the Federal judge is symptomatic of the peculiar importance in the American system of the Federal Constitution. A senator would be less likely to be an efficient and public-spirited legislator, in case he were not obliged at regular intervals to prove title to his distinction. A justice of the Supreme Court, on the other hand, can the better perform his special task, provided he has a firm and permanent hold upon his office. He cannot, to be sure, entirely escape responsibility to public opinion, but his primary duty is to expound the Constitution as he understands it; and it is a duty which demands the utmost personal independence. The fault with the American system in this respect consists not in the independence of the Federal judiciary, but in the practical immutability of the Constitution. If the instrument which the Supreme Court expounds could be altered whenever a sufficiently large body of public opinion has demanded a change for a sufficiently long time, ''the American democracy would have much more to gain than to fear from the independence of the Federal judiciary''.<ref>[[The Promise of American Life]], Page 200</ref></blockquote>
[[Frank Johnson Goodnow]] also mused that the judiciary would be the best place to affect change in the Constitution.<ref name=twilight /> Goodnow asked the following question:
<blockquote>Can a practically unamendable constitution, adopted in the conditions and under the influences of the political thought prevailing at the end of the eighteenth century, be adapted by judicial interpretation to the needs and thought of the twentieth century without causing us to lose the advantages which are commonly regarded as attached to a written constitution?<ref name=goodnow>[https://books.google.com/books?id=OPkgAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA54 Judicial Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions], Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York, Volume 3, October 26, 1912</ref></blockquote>
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>