Robert Bork, champion for interpreting the Constitution according to the original intent, makes the following statement....
“What was once the dominant view of constitutional law--that a judge is to apply the Constitution according to the principles intended by those who ratified the document--is now very much out of favor among the theorists of the field...”
“... a judge, no matter on what court he sits, may never create new constitutional rights or destroy old ones. Any time he does so, he violates not only the limits to his own authority but, and for that reason, also violates the rights of the legislature and the people.”
“The notion of a living Constitution seems to appeal to a great many people because the phrase makes it seem that the alternative is a dead Constitution. Indeed, I have no difficulty with the idea that the Constitution lives, only with the notion that it keeps sprouting new heads in accordance with current intellectual and moral fashion.”
God has not promised to honor our views read into the text! Activist interpreters, like activist judges, betray the intent of the the authors and the Ultimate Author who inspired them to pen His Word.
Great post, Steve. I wrote my senior paper in law school on "objective" interpretation in the law, and how non-objective method of interpretation led to the Roe v. Wade decision.
ReplyDeleteSounds like a great paper topic. Glad you found my blog.
ReplyDelete