Well, I don't hold as cynical a view of this process as pan.
I do consider that people can employ various definitions of what constitutes a living Constitution.
While Roberts may agree the Constitution is relevant to modern issues, he may differ from people who generally that view in how the application is achieved.
That is, the Constitution may very well apply to modern issues, but is it the role of the court to derive meaning from the social context or the principles embedded within the document? He may well hold the view that new principles ought to be instigated by Congress (although he has written disdainfully of their logic skills in the past). One could conceivably believe that the document is indeed living, but not malleable by the Court; rather, one could still hold that view simultaneously with the belief that only Congress has the power to forge newly recognized rights.
This is one possible way for someone to skate the line between the "originalist" camp and the "living document" camp.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|