It's interesting to see how justices can interpret the same Constitution in such radically different ways - some of them viewing it as frozen in 1868 while others view it as a living document. So, does relying on a document written by a limited group, in this case majority white men, risk excluding todays broader understanding of rights?
That’s one of the big debates in constitutional law (between originalists and living constitutionalists). The Court often ends up in the middle, using historical grounding but also recognizing evolving concepts of liberty and equality, like in Brown or Obergefell. So, it’s less about one approach being right or wrong and more about how each handles the risk of either freezing progress or untethering the law from its democratic roots.
It's interesting to see how justices can interpret the same Constitution in such radically different ways - some of them viewing it as frozen in 1868 while others view it as a living document. So, does relying on a document written by a limited group, in this case majority white men, risk excluding todays broader understanding of rights?
That’s one of the big debates in constitutional law (between originalists and living constitutionalists). The Court often ends up in the middle, using historical grounding but also recognizing evolving concepts of liberty and equality, like in Brown or Obergefell. So, it’s less about one approach being right or wrong and more about how each handles the risk of either freezing progress or untethering the law from its democratic roots.