The World & I Online Magazine, ONline Archive and Educational Resource  
World & I School | World & I Homeschool | World & I College | World & I Library
Username:   Password:      Subscribe Now   Register   About Us | Contact Us | FAQs      
The World & I Archive Peoples of the World Book Reviews Worldwide Folktales Fathers of Faith
Search  
Sort by: Results Listed:
Date Range:    Advanced Search

The World & I Magazine
 
Current Issue
The Arts
Life
Natural Science
Culture
Book World
Modern Thought
  Resources
American Waves
Book Reviews
Fathers of Faith
Footsteps of Lincoln
Millennial Moments
Peoples of the World
Profiles in Character
Traveling the Globe
Writers and Writing

Introduction: Confounding the Constitution: Treason in the Courts


Article # : 12158 

Section : MODERN THOUGHT
Issue Date : 3 / 1994  536 Words
Author : Editor

       "We the People ..." So begins the oldest written constitution still in effect today. Its authors hoped that future generations of Americans would have the foresight and imagination equal to their own to preserve the "sacred fire of liberty."
       
       For two centuries the Constitution has provided America with an effective and responsive framework for government. William Gladstone proclaimed the Constitution to be "the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given moment by the brain and purpose of man."
       
       Looking at the restless state of postmodern America, we would do well to remember the origins of our nation and recall the work of those who laid the foundations of our society and fashioned our system of government.
       
       In recent years, a heated debate has arisen among legal scholars and jurists over the subject of constitutional interpretation. Judicial activists believe that the intent of the framers of the Constitution is not discernable or applicable to our lives today. They would have us interpret the Constitution according to "evolving standards of morality." They rely less on the language of the document than on this "spirit." Justice William Brennan, for example, has said that "what the constitutional fundamentals meant to the wisdom of other times cannot be their measure to the vision of our time." Legal scholar Ronald Dworkin omits constitutional interpretation almost entirely. He argues that judges should not consider what the framers had in mind, but rather should look to the enlightened understanding modern Americans have today as a basis for deciding questions of law. ... (1930 of 3333 Characters)
Read Full Article

Copyright © 2004 The World & I Online. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy