An article from last October's "Keeping Faith with the Constitution in Changing Times" symposium, co-sponsored by Constitutional Interpretation and Change Issue Group and Vanderbilt University Law School. The symposium was held at Vanderbilt University Law School in October 2006.

Barry Friedman, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, traces three decades of debate over constitutional interpretation in The Constitution: Change and Interpretation. Professor Friedman discusses how the both liberals and conservatives developed agenda-driven responses to the decisions of the Warren and Burger Court from the 1950s through the 1980s; the Left used moral philosophy, apart from the Constitution’s text, to justify the Court’s work, while the Right honed its theory of originalism to develop a framework for criticizing Court decisions. Professor Friedman notes that neither view found favor with the public, which “[i]n large measure agreed with what the Supreme Court had decided, accepted the notion of a living Constitution, adaptable to changing circumstances and capable of addressing the felt needs of the times.” Professor Friedman concludes his piece by examining the nominations of Judge Robert Bork and Justice Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court. He notes Judge Bork’s nomination was defeated, at least in part, because the public feared the results of his originalist methodology. Justice Kennedy, in contrast, articulated in his confirmation hearing a view of constitutional interpretation that “squared with public opinion, eschewing both rigid originalism and moral philosophy for the middle ground of a living Constitution” and was confirmed unanimously.