Living Constitution vs. Settled Law

Attribute	Living Constitution	Settled Law
Interpretation	Interpreted in light of current societal values and norms	Interpreted based on original intent or text of the law
Flexibility	Allows for adaptation to changing circumstances	Provides stability and predictability
Evolution	Can evolve over time through judicial interpretation	Remains consistent and unchanging
Authority	Places authority in the hands of judges to interpret the Constitution	Places authority in the text of the law itself

Introduction

When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, two main approaches are often discussed: the Living Constitution and Settled Law. These two concepts represent different perspectives on how the Constitution should be understood and applied in modern times. In this article, we will explore the attributes of Living Constitution and Settled Law, highlighting their differences and similarities.

Living Constitution

The Living Constitution theory suggests that the Constitution is a dynamic document that should be interpreted in light of contemporary values and societal norms. Proponents of this approach argue that the Constitution's meaning can evolve over time to reflect changing circumstances and perspectives. This view emphasizes the flexibility of the Constitution and the need for interpretation to adapt to the needs of a modern society.

• Emphasizes the Constitution's flexibility
• Interprets the Constitution in light of contemporary values
• Views the Constitution as a living document
• Argues for evolving interpretations based on changing circumstances
• Highlights the need for adaptability in constitutional interpretation

Settled Law

Settled Law, on the other hand, takes a more conservative approach to constitutional interpretation. This theory suggests that the Constitution should be understood based on the original intent of the framers and the text of the document itself. Proponents of Settled Law argue that the Constitution should be interpreted in a more literal sense, without allowing for significant changes in meaning over time. This view emphasizes stability and consistency in constitutional interpretation.

• Emphasizes the original intent of the framers
• Interprets the Constitution based on the text itself
• Views the Constitution as a fixed document
• Argues for a more literal interpretation of the Constitution
• Highlights the importance of stability in constitutional interpretation

Key Differences

One of the key differences between Living Constitution and Settled Law is their approach to constitutional interpretation. While Living Constitution advocates for a more flexible and evolving interpretation, Settled Law emphasizes a more rigid and literal understanding of the Constitution. This fundamental difference in perspective leads to divergent views on how the Constitution should be applied in modern society.

Another important distinction between the two approaches is their view on the role of societal values in constitutional interpretation. Living Constitution proponents believe that contemporary values should inform the interpretation of the Constitution, while Settled Law advocates for a more historical and originalist approach. This difference in perspective can lead to contrasting conclusions on constitutional issues.

Similarities

Despite their differences, Living Constitution and Settled Law share some common attributes. Both approaches recognize the importance of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and the foundation of the American legal system. Additionally, both theories seek to uphold the principles of justice, equality, and the rule of law in interpreting the Constitution. While their methods may differ, both Living Constitution and Settled Law aim to ensure the integrity and legitimacy of constitutional interpretation.

Implications

The choice between Living Constitution and Settled Law has significant implications for constitutional law and governance. The approach taken in interpreting the Constitution can impact the outcome of legal cases, shape public policy decisions, and influence the development of constitutional doctrine. Understanding the attributes of Living Constitution and Settled Law is essential for legal scholars, policymakers, and citizens alike in navigating the complexities of constitutional interpretation.