If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility.
In a big family the first child is kind of like the first pancake. If it's not perfect, that's okay, there are a lot more coming along.
There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.
What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?
Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?
A journalistic purpose could be someone with a Xerox machine in a basement.
A law can be both economic folly and constitutional.
The Court today completes the process of converting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from a guarantee that race or sex will not be the basis for often will.
If we're picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a 'new' Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us. When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless.
A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable.
Why can't the state accede to the public's wishes?
You could have 50 different states having 50 different regulations... until they were all litigated out.
For un-subscribe please check the mail footer.