ABSTRACT
The ascendant school of constitutional interpretation affirms the existence of what is called The Living Constitution, a body of law that grows and changes from age to age, in order to meet the needs of a changing society. Scalia's main objection raised against the idea of a Living Constitution is that it lacks a guiding principle for evolution: 'What is it that the judge must consult to determine when, and in what direction, evolution has occurred? Is it the will of the majority, discerned from newspapers, radio talk shows, public opinion polls, and chats at the country club?'. A major difference between the life of plants and animals and the life of a language is that the latter is not submitted to the power of a genetic code. The same is true for the life of the law. It is useless to look for the DNA-structure of a living constitution.
