I would like to recommend this read to anyone who is interested in the debate between Originalists and those embracing the 'Living Constitution.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/11/027678.php
The interesting bit, aside from the history, is the very basic question....If the Constitution is a living document for Judges to modify as desired/needed, what is the Justification for Judicial Review? If the Constitution is not the rock upon which such review is made, what rationale did the Court have for it in the first place when they invented it.
Edit...sigh...I spell check the actual post and miss type the subject line....
I would like to recommend this read to anyone who is interested in the debate between Originalists and those embracing the 'Living Constitution.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/11/027678.php
The interesting bit, aside from the history, is the very basic question....If the Constitution is a living document for Judges to modify as desired/needed, what is the Justification for Judicial Review? If the Constitution is not the rock upon which such review is made, what rationale did the Court have for it in the first place when they invented it.
Edit...sigh...I spell check the actual post and miss type the subject line....