Living Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In United States legal discourse, the Living Constitution is a theory of constitutional interpretation which premises that the Constitution is, to some degree, dynamic. As the direct counter to originalism, which centers on textual meaning at the time of ratification, the theory of a "living" Constitution suggests a document that remains interdependent with the society that implements it. Its proponents thus argue that societal progress should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.^[1]

While the philosophical underpinnings of the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories:

• Pragmatism, the belief that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with long outdated views is often unacceptable as a policy matter.
• Intent, the argument that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document.

A prominent endorsement of the Living Constitution was heard in the 2000 presidential campaign by the Democratic candidate, Al 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.

Contents 1 Living constitution 1.1 Judicial Pragmatism 1.2 Original Intent 1.3 Applying a living constitution 2 Equal protection and due process clauses 3 Misconceptions 3.1 Textualism 3.2 Judicial Activism 3.3 Lawlessness 3.4 Comparisons 4 Debate 4.1 Arguments against 4.2 Arguments in favor 4.3 Justice Scalia's views 5 Internationally 6 See also 7 External links 8 References

[edit] Living constitution

The term originally derives from the title of a 1937 book of that name by Prof. Howard McBain, ^[2] while the earliest efforts at developing the concept in modern form have been credited to figures including Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Louis D. Brandeis, and Woodrow Wilson.^[3][4]

[edit] Judicial Pragmatism

Although "the living Constitution" is itself a characterization rather than a specific method of interpretation, the phrase is associated with various non-originalist theories of interpretation. The most common association is with judicial pragmatism.^[5][6]

According to the pragmatist view, the Constitution should be seen as evolving over time as a matter of social necessity. Looking solely to original meaning, when the original intent was largely to permit slavery, deny women's suffrage, and to perpetuate many other practices universally condemned today, is under this view cause to reject pure originalism out of hand.

This general view has been expressed by the libertarian Judge Richard Posner:

A constitution that did not invalidate so offensive, oppressive, probably undemocratic, and sectarian law [as the Connecticut law banning contraceptives] would stand revealed as containing major gaps. Maybe that is the nature of our, or perhaps any, written Constitution; but yet, perhaps the courts are authorized to plug at least the most glaring gaps. Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home.... We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution.^[7]

This pragmatist objection is central to the idea that the Constitution should be seen as a living document. Under this view, for example, constitutional requirements of "equal rights" should be read with regard to current standards of equality, and not those of decades or centuries ago, because the alternative would be unacceptable.

[edit] Original Intent

Main article: Original intent

In addition to pragmatist arguments, most proponents of the Living Constitution argue that the Constitution was deliberately written to be broad and flexible to accommodate social or technological change over time. For this proposition, Edmund Randolph's statement in the preamble of the Committee of Detail at the Constitutional Convention is often cited:^[8]

In the draught of a fundamental constitution, two things deserve attention:

1. To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events: and

2. To use simple and precise language, and general propositions, according to the example of the constitutions of the several states."^[9]

This decision to use "simple and precise language, and general propositions," such that the Constitution could "be accommodated to times and events," is often cited as the "genius" of the Constitutional framers, and is one of the main arguments for the Living Constitutional framework. Among other quotes cited in support of the Living Constitution is Justice John Marshall's in McCulloch v. Maryland, in which he described the Constitution as "intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."^[10] These statements are seen as a call for respecting the text and meaning of constitutional language, but also for allowing contemporary needs or values to inform its application to modern events.

Other Founding Fathers cited the need to interpret the Constitution in light of changing circumstances. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." ^[11] But he also warned against treating the Constitution as "a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please."^[12]

Some Living Constitutionists seek to reconcile themselves with the originalist view; e.g., one that interprets the Constitution as it was originally intended to be interpreted.^[13]

[edit] Applying a living constitution

One application of the Living Constitution framework is seen in the Supreme Court's reference to "evolving standards of decency" under the 8th Amendment. This was seen in the 1958 Supreme Court case of Trop v. Dulles:^[14]

[T]he words of the [Eighth] Amendment are not precise, and that their scope is not static. The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.

While the Court was referring in Trop only to the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, the underlying conception - namely, that the Constitution is written in broad terms, and that the Court's interpretation of those terms should reflect current societal conditions - is the heart of the "living Constitution" doctrine.^[15]

[edit] Equal protection and due process clauses

See also: Fifth amendment and Fourteenth amendment

From its inception, one of the most controversial aspects of the living Constitutional framework has been its association with a robust protection of civil liberties. Central to this has been the push for broad interpretations of the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Proponents of the Living Constitution suggest that a dynamic view of civil liberties is vital to the continuing effectiveness of our Constitutional scheme. Not only is it currently seen as unacceptable to suggest that minorities or women are not entitled to liberty or equal protection as they were not at the time of the Constitutional ratification, but neither do advocates of the living Constitution believe that the framers intended, or certainly demanded, that their 18th century practices be regarded as the permanent standard for these ideals.

Living Constitutionalists suggest that broad ideals such as "liberty" and "equal protection" were included in the Constitution precisely because they are timeless, due to their inherently dynamic nature. Liberty in 1791, it is argued, was never thought to be the same as liberty in 1591 or 1991, but rather was seen as a principle transcending the recognized rights of that day and age. Giving them a fixed and static meaning in the name of "originalism," thus, is said to violate the very theory it purports to uphold.

[edit] Misconceptions

As the subject of significant controversy, the idea of a Living Constitution is plagued by numerous misconceptions. Most often, these involve equating the term with judicial philosophies that are separate and distinct. In establishing the meaning of the term as used by its advocates, it is helpful to address some of the more common mischaracterizations. (As noted below, the term has also gained usage as an aspersion; in this context, the "misconceptions" may become the intended meaning).

[edit] Textualism

It is often said^[specify] that a Living Constitution implies a disregard for constitutional language. To call the Constitution "living," some say, is to suggest that one should not simply read and apply the constitutional text.

This is not the intended meaning of the term, however. What it suggests, rather, is that the Constitution be read contemporaneously, rather than historically.^[16] As an example, when the Constitution requires "just compensation" for the government exercise of eminent domain, the Living Constitutionalists would not disregard the words "just compensation." Instead, they would ask what is "just compensation" at the present date.

In fact, such an inquiry often consults the original meaning or intent, along with other interpretive devices. A proper application, then, involves some reconciliation between these various devices, not a simple disregard for one or another.^[17][18]

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court, claims to follow the principle of textualism in his book A Matter of Interpretation.

[edit] Judicial Activism

Another common characterization of the Living Constitution is as synonymous with "judicial activism," a phrase generally used to accuse Judges of resolving cases based on their own personal whims or preferences. However, this is not the intended meaning of the term. In fact, Living Constitutionalists, like adherents to other judicial philosophies, often condemn such an approach.

The primary reason that it is wrong to equate the term "Judicial Activism" with the Living Constituion (or any method of interpretation) is that Judicial Activism has to do with the consequences of interpretation, rather than the method. Commonly, a court is said to be "Activist" if it overturns or misconstrues acts of a legislature. But the mere fact that a Court overturns or misconstrues a law or other legislative act tells us nothing about the Court's reasoning.

In fact, analysis of Supreme Court decisions in recent years has demonstrated that the Justices most likely to overturn acts of Congress and state legislatures (and can therefore be labeled "activists") have been those who identify themselves as "Originalists" or "Textualists" and are often lauded by conservative politicians for showing judicial restraint, namely Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.[1] [2] [3][4] [5] [6]. The same studies consistently find that the least activist judges are those who approve of the Living Constitution approach.

Putting the political rhetoric aside, simply being a judicial activist itself is a relatively uninformative classification. After all, if the legislature has overstepped its authority, it is precisely the role of the judiciary to invalidate the offending laws.

Of course, there are philosophies (textualism, strict constructionism, or judicial restraint) which could be described as directly attacking "judicial activism." Like its counterpart of originalism, however, the Living Constitution does not speak to this issue. A Living Constitutionalist (or originalist), thus, could be a textualist, strict constructionist or supporter of judicial restraint, or some combination of each.

Nevertheless, there may be certain distinctions which can be drawn. For instance, Living Constitutionalists often cite to emerging societal norms in guiding their constitutional interpretation, whereas originalists tend to limit their consideration to societal values that are "deeply rooted in our Nation's history and tradition." Which approach is supported by greater legal authority, however, (or is more "activist") is a matter of intense debate. (One must note that the originalist position does not, by definition, support the latter.)

[edit] Lawlessness

Related to judicial activism, the Living Constitution is often characterized as a license for lawlesness, due to the alleged resulting absence of any fixed constitutional meaning. Again, however, a Living Constitution does not call for Constitutional restrictions to be ignored, but that they be read with regard for contemporary society. Whether a contemporary meaning or a historical meaning are more fixed or flexible is again a matter of intense debate.

In fact, the Living Constitution theory may reduce an individual's ability to influence his government, as has been noted in a speech by Justice Antonin Scalia:

If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again.... You think the death penalty is a good idea? (Under the formalist understanding of the Constitution, but not under the Living Constitution understanding, you can) persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility.

Proponents of the Living Constitution, however, are quick to point out that the document only "grows" over time in such a way as to grant new individual Constitutional rights, and thereby preclude the States from taking those rights away from their citizens. The Constitution does not, and in fact cannot, grow over time in such a way that limits the individual rights States are free to grant their citizens on their own.

[edit] Comparisons

In sum, it may be noted that the Living Constitution does not itself represent a detailed philosophy, and that distinguishing it from other theories can be difficult. Indeed, Living Constitutionalists often suggest that it is the true originalist philosophy, while originalists generally agree that phrases such as "just compensation" should be applied differently than 200 years ago. It has been suggested that the true difference between these judicial philosophies does not regard "meaning" at all, but rather, the correct application of Constitutional principles.^[19] A Living Constitutionalist would not necessarily state, for instance, that the meaning of "liberty" has changed since 1791. It may be what it always has always been: a general principle recognizing individual freedom. The important change then might be in what is recognized as liberty today, that was not fully recognized two centuries ago. This view was enunciated for the Supreme Court by Justice George Sutherland in 1926:

[W]hile 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.^[20]

To complete the example, the question of how to apply a term like "liberty" may not be a question of what it "means," but rather a question of what liberties are presently entitled to constitutional protection. Living Constitutionalists tend to advocate a broad application in accordance with current views, while originalists tend to seek an application consistent with views at the time of ratification. Critics of the Living Constitution assert that it is more open to judicial manipulation, but it has been argued that the theoretical flexibility on both sides provides adherents extensive leeway in what decision to reach in a particular case.^[21][22]

[edit] Debate

By its nature, the "living Constitution" is not held to be a specific theory of construction, but a vision of a Constitution whose boundaries are dynamic, congruent with the needs of society as it changes. This method also has its critics; in the description of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, it "has about it a teasing imprecision that makes it a coat of many colors."^[23]

It is important to note that the term "living Constitution" is often used by critics as an aspersion. Many advocates of the general philosophy object to the phrase, which they see as misrepresentative and a straw-man tactic by their adversaries. Opponents of the doctrine tend to use the term as an epithet synonymous with judicial activism. (Itself a hotly debated phrase.) However, just as some conservative theorists have embraced the term Constitution in Exile (which similarly gained popularity through use by liberal critics), and textualism was a term which once had pejorative connotations before its widespread acceptance as a badge of honor, some liberal theorists have embraced the image of a living document as appealing.^[24]

[edit] Arguments against

The strongest argument against the doctrine of "Living Constitution" comes not from its moderate use, but when the concept has been abused as a method of activism. The term presumes the premise of “that which is written is insufficient in light of what has transpired since”. This more moderate concept is generally not the target of those who are against the "Living Constitution". The concept considered perverse by constructionalists is "making the law say what you think it should say, rather than submitting to what it does say".

Another argument against the concept of a "living Constitution" ironically, is similar to the argument for it; the fact that the Constitution itself is silent on the matter of constitutional interpretation. The doctrine of the "living Constitution" relies on the concept that the original framers either could not come to a consensus about how to interpret, or they never intended any fixed method of interpretation. This would then allow future generations the freedom to reexamine for themselves how to interpret the Constitution.

This view does not take into account why the original constitution does not allow for judicial interpretation in any form. The Supreme Court's power for constitutional review, and by extension its interpretation, did not come about until Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The concept for a "living constitution" therefore relies on an argument regarding the writing of the constitution that had no validity when the constitution was written.

The views of constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe are often described by conservative critics such as Robert Bork as being characteristic of the “living Constitution paradigm” they condemn. Bork labels Tribe’s approach as "protean," meaning that it was whatever Tribe needed it to be to reach a desired policy outcome. (Tribe rejects both the term and the description) Such a construction appears to define “living Constitution” doctrine as being an ends dictate the means anti-law philosophy. Some liberal constitutional scholars have since implied a similar charge of intellectual dishonesty regarding originalists, noting that they virtually never reach outcomes with which they disagree. (Many academic political scientists believe that justices and appeals judges are willing to alter their outcomes to attain philosophical majorities on certain questions.)^{[citation needed]}

In 1987, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered a lecture, "The Constitution: A Living Document," in which he argued that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of the moral, political, and cultural climate of the age of interpretation. If Judge Bork's formulation of "the living Constitution" is guiding, then any interpretation of the Constitution other than originalism (of one form or another) implicates a living Constitution. If, however, Justice Marshall's formulation is guiding, then it is unclear whether methods derived from law and economics or the Moral Constitution might be implicated.

References to "the living Constitution" are relatively rare among legal academics and judges, who generally prefer to use language that is specific and less rhetorical. It is also worth noting that there is disagreement among opponents of "the living Constitution" about whether the idea is the same as, implied by, or assumed by judicial activism, which has a similar ambiguity of meaning and is also used primarily as an epithet.

[edit] Arguments in favor

One of the strongest arguments in support of the concept of a "living Constitution" is the fact that the Constitution itself is silent on the matter of constitutional interpretation. Proponents of the living Constitution note that the issue of how to interpret a legal text has spurred ongoing debate for centuries. The Constitutional framers, most of whom were trained lawyers and legal theorists, were certainly aware of these debates; they also would have known the confusion that not providing a clear interpretive method would cause. Had the framers meant for future generations to interpret the Constitution in a specific manner, they could have indicated such within the Constitution itself.^[25] The lack of guidance within the text of the Constitution suggests, therefore, that either: a) there was no such consensus, or b) the framers never intended any fixed method of constitutional interpretation. In either case, future generations are free, and in fact compelled, to reexamine for themselves how to properly interpret the Constitution.

Relating to the pragmatic argument, it is further argued that if judges were denied the opportunity to reflect on changes to modern society in interpreting the scope of Constitutional rights, the resulting Constitution either would not reflect current mores and values, or would necessitate a constant amendment process it to reflect our changing society.

Moreover, it has been suggested that a failure to take societal change into account leads to a separate problem: that of stare decisis. A Court that determines that the only proper method of interpretation is to try to reconstruct either the meaning of statutes at the time they were enacted, or the intent of the legislature that enacted it, will inevitably either overrule countless previous Court decisions that it feels were arrived at incorrectly or tie itself into logical knots in trying to make sense of contradictory opinions.

An evolving Constitution also makes sense for those who view the Constitution not as merely law, but as a source of foundational concepts for the governing of society. Of course, laws must be fixed and clear so that people can understand and abide by them on a daily basis. But if the Constitution is more than a set of laws, if it provides guiding concepts which themselves will in turn provide the foundations for laws, then the costs and benefits of such an entirely fixed meaning are very different. The reason for this is simple: if a society locks itself into a previous generation's interpretive ideas, it will wind up either constantly attempting to change the Constitution to reflect changes, or simply scrapping the Constitution altogether. While we remain bound by the rights and powers provided in the Constitution, thus, the scope those rights and powers should account for society's present experiences.

The Living Constitution and Activism

One accusation made against the living Constitution method states that judges that adhere to it are "Activists" and seek to legislate from the bench. What is generally meant by this is that a judge winds up substituting his judgment regarding the validity, meaning, or scope of a law for that of the democratically elected legislature. This is misleading in several ways:

First, it improperly correlates "Activism" with any one particular method of constitutional interpretation. An activist judge, by common definition, is simply a judge who overrules the legislature, usually by invalidating a law. But this says nothing about the reason or method used to arrive at a judge's conclusion. If a law violates a Constitutional principle, then it is precisely the judge's duty to invalidate it. In this respect, some argue that the entire basis for an independent, unelected, judicial branch with the powers of judicial review is to have a neutral magistrate whose only allegiance is to the rule of Constitutional law.

Second, if "activist" merely refers to judges who overrule legislative acts, then the most activist recent members of the Supreme Court -- by very wide margins -- have been self-proclaimed Originalists, Strict Constructionists, and political conservatives: namely, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. This is largely due to Congress having passed laws pursuant to more modern and expansive interpretations of the Constitution, such as the broader scope of Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause which emerged during the time of the New Deal, interpretations which are at odds with Originalist views concerning the powers of Congress. The result, however, is Originalist Justices repeatedly voting to invalidate legislatively enacted laws.

Third, adherents of a living Constitution method are often accused of "reading rights" into the Constitution; that is, they are accused of claiming that the Constitution implies rights found nowhere in the constitutional text. For example, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that implicit within the Constitution was a "right to privacy" and that this right extends to a woman's right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy. As such, the Court held that the government could only regulate this right with a compelling interest, and even then only if the regulation was as minimally intrusive as possible. Conservative critics have since accused the Supreme Court of activism in inventing a Constitutional right to abortion. This accusation may be accurate (in that abortion rights indeed had not previously been recognized), but it is also used selectively. For example, few conservatives levy the same claim against the Supreme Court for its decisions concerning Sovereign Immunity: a term also found nowhere in the Constitution but "read in" to the Eleventh Amendment by the Supreme Court, and has since been expanded by the recent conservative majority. Moreover, in the case of Kelo v. New London, the conservatives Justices on the Supreme Court showed a willingness to read a "public use requirement" into the Fifth Amendment government power of eminent domain, despite its origins by implication, but also again to broad Conservative support.

[edit] Justice Scalia's views

Justice Antonin Scalia has routinely castigated "living Constitution" doctrine. In one particularly strongly-worded attack, he noted that:

[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things . . . [Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided] not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court . . . They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable.""^[26]

[edit] Internationally

In Canada, the living constitution is described under the living tree doctrine.

The "frozen concepts" reasoning runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation: that our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.^[27]

It has been argued that a primary determinative factor in whether a legal system will develop a "living constitutional" framework is the ease with which constitutional amendments can be passed.^[28]

[edit] See also

• Parliamentary sovereignty
• Judicial philosophy
• Active Liberty
• Constitution in exile
• Due process
• Judicial activism
• Judicial interpretation
• Judicial minimalism
• Judicial restraint
• Legal formalism
• Legal realism
• Legislative intent
• Originalism
• Plain Meaning Rule
• Purposive theory
• Stare decisis
• Statutory interpretation
• Strict constructionism
• Textualism
• Stephen G. Breyer
• Living tree doctrine
• Antonin Scalia

[edit] External links

• Alive and Kicking: Why no one truly believes in a dead Constitution, by Jack M. Balkin http://www.slate.com/id/2125226/
• Synthesizing originalism and Living Constitutionalism, by Jack Balkin http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/08/synthesizing-originalism-and-living.html
• Confusion about Originalism, by Jack Balkin http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/confusion-about-originalism.html
• Balkin, Jack M. (August 28, 2006). "Abortion and Original Meaning". Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper 119. SSRN 925558. 
• Originalism Redux, by Brian Leiter http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/06/originalism_red.html

[edit] References

1. ^ Winkler, Adam. A Revolution Too Soon: Woman Suffragists and The "Living Constitution". 76 NYULR 1456, 1463 ("Based on the idea that society changes and evolves, living constitutionalism requires that constitutional controversies, in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., "must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago.")
2. ^ McBain, Howard Lee (1937) The Living Constitution. The Macmillan company.
3. ^ Winkler at 1457
4. ^ Wilson often referred to the Constitution as a "vehicle of life." See Kammen, Michael. A Vehicle of Life: The Founders' Intentions and American Perceptions of Their Living Constitution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 131, No. 3, A More Perfect Union: Essays on the Constitution (Sep., 1987)
5. ^ Goldford, Dennis J (2005). The American Constitution and the Debate Over Originalism. Cambidge University Press, Pg. 59. ISBN 0521845580 ("Harold Koh justifies such a position by distinguishing between a rigid literalism he ascribes to originalism and a flexible pragmatism that views the Constitution as a living document that must adapt to modern times.")
6. ^ Harold Koh, 41 Duke Law Journal 122, 128 (1991)(note 34).
7. ^ Posner, Richard (1992) Sex and Reason. Harvard University Press, pg. 328. ISBN 0674802802
8. ^ Kammen, Michael. A Vehicle of Life: The Founders' Intentions and American Perceptions of Their Living ConstitutionProceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 131, No. 3, A More Perfect Union: Essays on the Constitution (Sep., 1987)
9. ^ Records of the Federal Convention, available at http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/preambles7.html Retrieved 4/17/07
10. ^ Balkin, Jack. Alive and Kicking: Why no one truly believes in a dead Constitution. August 29, 2005 http://www.slate.com/id/2125226/ Retrieved 4/20/07
11. ^ Letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810, available at http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html Retrieved 9/28/07
12. ^ The Founders' Constitution University of Chicago
13. ^ Marshall, Lawrence. Contempt of Congress: A Reply to the Critics of an Absolute Rule of Statutory Stare Decisis, 88 Michigan Law review 2467, 2478 (1990)(footnote omitted). ("Consistent with the notion of the Constitution as a living document, definitions and applications of terms like "due process," "cruel and unusual punishment," and "unreasonable search and seizure" evolve over time. The specter of judges inserting content into these phrases is not an unfortunate or inevitable by-product of the framers' poor drafting or lack of foresight; it is a critical part of the process of breathing life into a document originated by those long dead.") Quoted by Goldford
14. ^ Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)
15. ^ Balkin, Jack. Alive and Kicking: Why no one truly believes in a dead Constitution. August 29, 2005 http://www.slate.com/id/2125226/ Retrieved 4/20/07 ("Original meaning does not mean original expected application. For example, the Constitution bans cruel and unusual punishments. But the application of the concepts of "cruel and unusual" must be that of our own day, not 1791.")
16. ^ Balkin, Jack. Alive and Kicking: Why no one truly believes in a dead Constitution. August 29, 2005 http://www.slate.com/id/2125226/ Retrieved 4/20/07 ("A living Constitution requires that judges faithfully apply the constitutional text, given the meanings the words had when they were first enacted, applying those words to today's circumstances.")
17. ^ Amann, Diane Marie (2006). International Law and Rehnquist-Era Reversals. 94 Georgetown Law Journal 1319 ("Living-Constitution doctrines require the Court to render a decision faithful both to constitutional history and to contemporary circumstance. Seldom will the words of a provision--particularly of an open-textured term like "due process," "cruel and unusual," or, for that matter, "unreasonable" -- prove the final authority. The doctrines thus invite judges to consult additional sources.")
18. ^ Balkin, Jack. Alive and Kicking: Why no one truly believes in a dead Constitution. August 29, 2005 http://www.slate.com/id/2125226/ Retrieved 4/20/07 ("Living constitutionalists draw upon precedent, structure, and the country's history to flesh out the meaning of the text. They properly regard all of these as legitimate sources of interpretation.")
19. ^ Balkin, Jack M., "Abortion and Original Meaning" (August 28, 2006). Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 119 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=925558
20. ^ Village of Euclid v. Amber, 272 U.S. 365 (1926) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=272&page=365
21. ^ Sunsetin, Cass (2006). Of Snakes and Butterflies: A Reply. 106 Columbia Law Review 2234. ("In the last decade and more, some (of course very far from all) conservative judges have been reading the Constitution in a way that lines up uncomfortably well with their own political views: to invalidate affirmative action programs, campaign finance laws, and restrictions on gun control; to strike down certain laws protecting the environment and forbidding discrimination on the basis of disability and age; to protect commercial advertising; to permit discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation; to allow government to provide financial and other assistance to religious institutions; to give the President broad, unilateral authority to fight the war on terror; and to contain no right of reproductive choice or sexual liberty. No one doubts that some of these readings of the Constitution are reasonable. But Radicals in Robes was partly designed to show that, for all the talk of "strict construction," and for all the insistence on distinguishing between law and politics, we are in the midst of a period in which some prominent conservatives are attempting to use judicial power for their own political ends. To be sure, judges almost always act in good faith. But it is nonetheless true that references to history, and to the views of the Framers and ratifiers, are sometimes a fraud and a façade.")
22. ^ Balkin, Jack. Alive and Kicking: Why no one truly believes in a dead Constitution. August 29, 2005 http://www.slate.com/id/2125226/ Retrieved 4/20/07 ("Because the basic jurisprudential claim that original understanding is the only legitimate method of interpretation is overstated, originalists usually make a second, more pragmatic argument: A living Constitution offers insufficient constraints on judicial power. The irony of this charge is that in practice originalism doesn't provide any greater constraint. As we've seen, originalist judges pick and choose when to invoke original understanding and when to rely on existing precedents they like.")
23. ^ Rehnquist, William.The Notion of a Living Constitution, 54 Texas Law Review 693 (1976), reprinted in 29 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 401 (2006).
24. ^ Lithwick, Dahlia. Reasons To Go On Living: Does anyone believe in a "living Constitution" anymore? August 23, 2005. http://www.slate.com/id/2124891/ Retrieved 4/20/07.
25. ^ Sunstein 106 CLMR 2234, 2236 ("The Constitution does not set out the instructions for its own interpretation. A theory of interpretation has to be defended, rather than asserted, and the defense must speak candidly in terms of the system of constitutional law that it will yield.")
26. ^ Peter Lattman (2006-02-14). Scalia Assails Living Constitutionalists. Wall Street Journal Law Blog. Retrieved on 2007-03-28.
27. ^ Supreme Court of Canada, in its ruling, Re: Same-Sex Marriage, December 2004
28. ^ Frey, Bruno S. and Stutzer, Alois, Direct Democracy: Designing a Living Constitution (September 17, 2003). Zurich IEER Working Paper No. 167. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=452081