THE argument most frequently made in favor of The Living Constitution is a pragmatic one: Such an evolutionary approach is necessary in order to provide the “flexibility” that a changing society requires; the Constitution would have snapped if it had not been permitted to bend and grow. This might be a persuasive argument if most of the “growing” that the proponents of this approach have brought upon us in the past, and are determined to bring upon us in the future, were the elimination of restrictions upon democratic government. But just the opposite is true. Historically, and particularly in the past 35 years, the “evolving” Constitution has imposed a vast array of new constraints-new inflexibilities-upon administrative, judicial, and legislative action. To mention only a few things that formerly could be done or not done, as the society desired, but now cannot be done:
-admitting in a state criminal trial evidence of guilt that was obtained by an unlawful search;
Comments