It's that time of year again when law students overpopulate local coffeeshops in their relentless pursuit for the elusive A on upcoming exams. I struggled last week to make a comeback in several classes after slacking all semester long. At this point, I just hope I passed...
Anyway, i've been studying for my Constitutional Law II Exam and I came across a good passage that provides a nice alternative to those that proclaim the wonders of originalism when interpreting the Constitution.
From Justice Harlan's dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut:
"Because it is the Constitution alone which warrants judicial interference in sovereign operations of the State, the basis of judgment as to the Constitutionality of state action must be a rational one, approaching the text [not] in a literalistic way, as if we had a tax statute before us, but as the basic charter of our society, setting out in spare but meaningful terms the principles of government..."
Back to the books...i'll be back after thursday.
Comments