Pajamas Media: The Living Constitution vs. Original Public Meaning

"The 'nine old men' (as some liberals called the Supreme Court in the mid-1930s) were committed to a contract between the generations, not a living, breathing, constantly mutating Constitution. They struck down many laws that showed that they were not simply changing the rules of the game to suit their personal preferences. By contrast, the 'living Constitution' theory became a method for superimposing the personal policy preferences of a majority of the Supreme Court over what the Framers intended. Throughout the period since West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937) upheld a state law that required employers to discriminate against women (a very popular liberal cause at the time), the 'living Constitution' model has been the excuse for both ignoring original intent and skipping the more demanding task of amending the Constitution when needed."