Americans Assess Future of Supreme Court

May 30, 2005

(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Adults in the United States are divided on the way the country’s foremost tribunal should handle its rulings, according to a poll by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. 51 per cent of respondents believe the Supreme Court should consider changing times and current realities, while 42 per cent say it should only take into account the original intentions of the authors of the Constitution. <snip>

Which comes closer to your point of view: a) In making decisions, the Supreme Court should only consider the original intentions of the authors of the Constitution; or b) In making decisions, the Supreme Court should consider changing times and current realities in applying the principles of the Constitution.

Original intentions 42%
Changing times 51%
Don’t know / No answer 8%

President George W. Bush may have the opportunity to make several nominations to the Supreme Court. Would you like to see him make the court more conservative, more liberal, or keep the present balance?

More conservative 27%
More liberal 29%
Keep present balance 39%
Don’t know / No answer 5%

Source: Quinnipiac University Polling Institute
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,104 registered American voters, conducted from May 18 to May 23, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=7422

it to change with the time. I have heard it called "a living document" for that very reason. It can't be locked in the horse and buggy era or it would have no meaning in today's world. IMHO.

see it.

If you mean by "change with the times" that a phrase such as "freedom of the press" should now apply to all forms of publication including electronic (i.e. internet), then yes this makes perfect sense. It is not logical to limit the freedom of the press to what could be published using an 18th printing press since the phrase relates to a freedom to publish one's ideas within the limits of the well understood common law, it did not mean a freedom to use a an 18th century printing press for any reason whatever.


If "changing with the times" means that the "freedom of the press" could reasonably be interpreted as a right assigned to some subsegment of the population who are gainfully employed by recognized media, then NO, that sort of "living" COnstitution is a road to hell and should be rejected.


The game is only partly evolving vs. static, and turns also on whether one reads its protections broadly or narrowly and how one reaches those limits. A full and open discussion of the history of the FIrst amendment would find no evidence to limit the "freedom of the press" to people employed by recognized newspapers/media, but would instead find just the opposite. However, using a narrow reading of the word "press" in a modern context would support the narrow reading.

The Constitution when read from an originalist AND BROAD interpretation of rights tends to increase liberty, and the Constitution read from an evolving AND NARROW interpretation of rights can lead to curtailment of freedom. On the other hand Originalist AND Narrow produces also produces curtailed rights, and Evolving AND Broad produces expanded rights.


My preference is for originalist read broadly in terms of our rights because the upside is very ggod, but the downside has much less potential for tyrrany than an "evolving" constitution. The evolving Constitution could easily be used against us in more drastic ways than an originalist and narrow reading of our rights coupled with an originalist and broad reading of governemnt powers ever could be.

the Constitution. This is an enormous failing of our school system, colleges and education media. Most people get their "information" about interpretation of the Constitution from conservative demagogues. If we ever hope to have a rational political discussion in this country, we need to do something about our level of legal literacy.

:rant:

Also CSPAN has a program America and the Courts which is educational.

But what is needed is for people to take an interest and read about the Constitution and the major cases that shape/define/demonstrate the Supreme Court's interpretive methods. The old adage seems to fit -you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.


I do agree about schools not teaching nearly enough about the Constitution. Maybe there is just too much politics involved in teaching certain specific decisions (such as the Supreme Court upholding corporate personhood while blacks were denied equal protection -though the 14th was written for their benefit), but at least schools could teach more about the basic outlines and maybe some cases that would not be veiwed as taking sides politically speaking.

between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I agree that there are lots of good resources out there, but I don't think the average otherwise-educated person even knows enough to be curious and look for them.

We wonder why people don't value the 1st amendment; I think most people don't even know what the 1st amendment is about.