ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER: A Conversation with Robert Bork

There are often said to be two competing schools for interpreting the meaning of the Constitution. On one side are those who believe that the meaning of the Constitution must evolve over time as society itself changes. On the other side are those who insist that the original intent of the framers of the Constitution—what they wrote and what their intent was in writing it—is all that matters. Robert Bork is firmly in the latter school. We asked him to explicate his understanding of the U.S. Constitution, using recent Supreme Court decisions as case studies.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Bork
• Constitution
• rights
• original
• intent
• Supreme
• Court

[kubiczech25]

The whole point of constitution is not to promote "societal change", but to make it more difficult. Furthermore, he is promoting striking down of a "societal change" by an amendment to constitution, not by judicial decision, so there is no inconsistency what so ever.

[Spudst3r]

Bork's tirade against gay marriage proves just how closely tied social conservatism and originalism are.

In fact it went far to show how inconsistent and convenient the philosophy can be to strike down societal change that occurs.