Carol Steiker

Therefore, a principle to be vital must be capable of wider application than the mischief that gave it birth.

Therefore, a principle to be vital must be capable of wider application than the mischief that gave it birth.

Therefore, a principle to be vital must be capable of wider application than the mischief that gave it birth.

In former times, being put in the stocks was not considered as necessarily infamous. But at the present day, it might be thought an infamous punishment.

In former times, being put in the stocks was not considered as necessarily infamous. But at the present day, it might be thought an infamous punishment.

In former times, being put in the stocks was not considered as necessarily infamous. But at the present day, it might be thought an infamous punishment.

It's weirdest to apply originalism to the sort of deliberately vague provisions of the Constitution or what some have called more poetically the majestic generalities of the Constitution, like due process of law or equal protection of the laws or unreasonable searches and seizures, which has been interpreted to be about reasonable expectations of privacy or cruel and unusual punishments.

It's weirdest to apply originalism to the sort of deliberately vague provisions of the Constitution or what some have called more poetically the majestic generalities of the Constitution, like due process of law or equal protection of the laws or unreasonable searches and seizures, which has been interpreted to be about reasonable expectations of privacy or cruel and unusual punishments.

It's weirdest to apply originalism to the sort of deliberately vague provisions of the Constitution or what some have called more poetically the majestic generalities of the Constitution, like due process of law or equal protection of the laws or unreasonable searches and seizures, which has been interpreted to be about reasonable expectations of privacy or cruel and unusual punishments.

When the Constitution says the president needs to be 35 years old, that's not a majestic generality. But when the Constitution says no cruel and unusual punishments, and even at the time it's being debated, the ratifiers are saying, not entirely sure what that means. You know that it's being passed as a generality to be given content over time.

When the Constitution says the president needs to be 35 years old, that's not a majestic generality. But when the Constitution says no cruel and unusual punishments, and even at the time it's being debated, the ratifiers are saying, not entirely sure what that means. You know that it's being passed as a generality to be given content over time.

When the Constitution says the president needs to be 35 years old, that's not a majestic generality. But when the Constitution says no cruel and unusual punishments, and even at the time it's being debated, the ratifiers are saying, not entirely sure what that means. You know that it's being passed as a generality to be given content over time.

I think Weems gives a very poetic answer. and ringing endorsement to a living constitutionalist view. That the evil can't be specifically whatever it was at the time of the language. It has to be given a wider interpretation than the mischief that gave it birth. And Trope versus Dulles doubles down on that.

I think Weems gives a very poetic answer. and ringing endorsement to a living constitutionalist view. That the evil can't be specifically whatever it was at the time of the language. It has to be given a wider interpretation than the mischief that gave it birth. And Trope versus Dulles doubles down on that.

I think Weems gives a very poetic answer. and ringing endorsement to a living constitutionalist view. That the evil can't be specifically whatever it was at the time of the language. It has to be given a wider interpretation than the mischief that gave it birth. And Trope versus Dulles doubles down on that.

Stripped of his American citizenship. But he didn't have any other citizenship. So he'd now be a stateless person. With really no right to live anywhere and be part of any political community.

Stripped of his American citizenship. But he didn't have any other citizenship. So he'd now be a stateless person. With really no right to live anywhere and be part of any political community.

Stripped of his American citizenship. But he didn't have any other citizenship. So he'd now be a stateless person. With really no right to live anywhere and be part of any political community.

And the Supreme Court said, that's cruel and unusual punishment.

And the Supreme Court said, that's cruel and unusual punishment.