Changes

{{cquote|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>}}

{{cquote|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>}}

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>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>The Living Law, [[Louis Brandeis]] Illinois Law Review, February 16, 1916</ref>

===Phrase===

===Phrase===

==Usage==

==Usage==

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.

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 implicitly embraced by the left side of the Court in numerous rulings since.

==See Also==

==See Also==