Filed under: Law
So apparently John Roberts, in his majority opinion declining to rule the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional (for now!), said the following:
“We are now a very different nation” than more than 40 years ago when the Voting Rights Act was first upheld. “Whether conditions continue to justify” the act, the majority said, is “a difficult constitutional question.”
So it was constitutional in 1965, but now maybe it’s unconstitutional? Maybe the Founders intended for it to be constitutional for Congress to require that legislatures pre-approve changes in district boundaries to ensure they don’t infringe on minority voting rights in 1965, but now their spirits up in Heaven have changed their original-intending minds and decided that they didn’t originally intend that? Maybe there’s been some kind of Back-to-the-Future-style original-intent time-traveling going on?
Or maybe what Roberts is saying is that the Constitution is a living document that needs to be constantly reinterpreted in light of changes in society? Because that’s what it looks to me like he’s saying here.
5 Comments so far
Leave a comment