The Pros And Cons Of A Living Constitution

More and more people have grown disillusioned with the Supreme Court in the last thirty years than ever before. We have seen more of a shift from decisions aimed at bettering the lives of the people, to politically driven decisions with only the elite, profiting. This fact highlights the court’s need to gradually move toward a modern and evolutionary interpretations of the Constitution, rather than trying to render “new world” decisions, from an “old world” perspective. In simpler words, the nine residents of One, First Street need to embrace the idea of a Living Constitution. A Living Constitution simply refers to a Constitution which evolves as time passes by, whether it be in the form of amendments, or interpretation. I believe the main criticism, from both Robert Jackson and James Burns is that as time evolves, the Supreme Court has an obligation to interpret the

Every court case argued in front of the Court where an evolving interpretation of the constitution was utilized has proved to be overwhelmingly accepted and with little to no negative consequences. Cases such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, or Obergefell v. Hodges, illustrate that social pressure does somewhat influence the decisions made by the court. If not, how can one explain, how issues such as homosexuality or healthcare that have for so many years been avoided and dodged by the Supreme Court, could finally be argued for or against in front of the court?

Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist believed that the Constitution was framed with a language that allows for us to interpret it or amend it as new world affairs or social trends arise. He once said “Where the framers of the Constitution have used general language, they have given latitude to those who would later interpret the instrument to make that language applicable to cases that the framers might not have foreseen.