ABSTRACT
The newest of the four schools of interpretation emerged in the first half of the twentieth century in the time of the Progressive Era and the New Deal. But in its full form it is a product of the civil rights and social justice era of the 1960s, with its emphasis on the rights revolution in free speech, due process, and personal privacy as well as the rapid expansion of the role of women and minorities. In this tumultuous era of change, who could favor a dead Constitution? Living Constitutionalism is a great phrase, because its opposite is hard to advocate. I was taught as a kid that the Constitution evolves to fit the needs of our society as it changes, which means that of course it must be a living and not a dead document. Living Constitutionalism in this sense is often taught as the only reasonable or legitimate approach, but this masks the several different ways the term is applied.
