"So, I turn to you, dear readers, smart thinkers, and posters of great wisdom in the Fray, to ask simply: Is the living Constitution dead? Are the critics correct-was it all just a great drunken binge of Brennan and Thurgood Marshall's? What is left in its place? Is there room for a Brennan-esque defense anymore? Or am I correct in guessing that Scalia is right this time?"
In order, I answer her questions, yes, yes, The Constitution of the United States of America, no and Hell Yes!
In effect, she is saying that there is no comprehensive, logical defense for the myth of the "Living Constitution".
The "living Constitution" is dead.
Long live the Constitution of the United States of America!
Read the link for what intelligent jurists and legal scholars have to say .
2 comments:
i don't necessarily think that the living Constitution is dead. i believe that it has to be a living document because times change. the norm in one generation can be far different than another one. can you think of a world that 'Plessy' would still be the law? i can't, because it's crazy.
although, i can't really think of any major overturns of precedent since that one, so maybe it is dead.
Its not dead in that sense.
But the Constitution is one of the founding documents (and) a legal document.
There is a process for change but the change is a legal procedural change.
There is no place in the constitution that says a majority of the supreme court can ignore the intent and change it through re-definition or overreach its bounds into the perogatives of legislature.
There must be a leveling, a balance of powers.
In essence; no Justice should rule using his personal prejudices.
When a Justice rules using president from foreign law, there can be little doubt that they are digging for a reason to enact their own views instead of the rule of law.
Plessy, was bad law. But we are going to get some of that no-matter. The recent Kelo Decision is another example of bad law.
Post a Comment