Considers the debate over 'judicial activism'. This work offers a simple way to resolve the heated discord between conservatives, who argue that the Constitution is immutable, and progressives, who insist it is a living document that must be reinterpreted in new cultural contexts so that its meaning evolves.
Constitutional scholar Kermit Roosevelt uses plain language and compelling examples to explain how the Constitution can be both a constant and an organic document, and takes a balanced look at controversial decisions through a compelling new lens of constitutional interpretation.
