I have a new theory of constitutional law. I call it “living constitutionalism.” It claims that the Const. has been interpreted by the Court in different ways at different times. It is thus a “living" doc. Living Constitutionalism is our law and judges take an oath to support it.
The argument for it is simple:
P1: Texts whose interpretations change over time are "living."
P2: The Constitution is a text whose interpretation has changed over time.
C: Therefore, the Constitution is a living text.
P1: Texts whose interpretations change over time are "living."
P2: The Constitution is a text whose interpretation has changed over time.
C: Therefore, the Constitution is a living text.
The theory opens up whole new lines of inquiry, eg: Given that the Court's interpretation of some provisions has NOT changed, we can now ask such Q as, "why have some of its interps changed and others not? Which should be kept? Which discarded? Which recovered?"
#groundbreaking.
#groundbreaking.
