Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
|||
Line 110:
I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time, and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must, with all deference, reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change, and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people's elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and, being somewhat old-fashioned, I must add it is good enough for me.<ref name="GriswoldvConnecticut">[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=389&invol=347 ''Griswold v. Connecticut'', 381 U.S. 479 (1965). (Black, J., dissenting).]</ref>
</blockquote>
Thus, some have seen Black as an [[originalism|originalist]]. But, unlike modern originalists, Black often did not look to or ignored the "original intention" or "original meaning" of the words in the Constitution. He believed that the meaning of the words was not "frozen" by what they meant in 1789, but rather that the words were to be interpreted by their literal contemporary meaning. So Black often reached results substanitally at odds with evidence of the "original meaning" of specific provisions in the Constitution. Thus commentators have usually characterized Black as an "
===Federalism===
|