Some commentators reject an originalist theory of interpreting the Constitution in favor of a theory that views the Constitution as a living, breathing, evolving organism. For example, Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky says that "nonoriginalists believe that the Constitution's meaning is not limited to what the framers intended; rather, the meaning and application of constitutional provisions should evolve by interpretation."
Is this a theory of evolution or a theory of creation? How does the Constitution "evolve" into a new species in so brief a time? Surely, the sudden appearance of new constitutional rules in the fossil record is best explained by a theory of intelligent design, of Creation if you please, by shifting Supreme Court majorities. Thus, when Prof. Chemerinsky says that constitutional provisions "evolve by interpretation" what he means is these new constitutional species are called into being by judicial decisions (intelligent design) written by a Creator consisting of no fewer than 5 unelected lawyers serving lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment