t the Constitution should be adopted to the "various crisis", but rather, the powers granted to the legislative branch were adaptable to deal with current issues. Simply, the courts role should be one of review, not enactment.The court should be free to pursue a jurisprudence of activism and restraint. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the court ruled that separate but equal was constitutional. They reached that conclusion even though the 14th Amendment required that all persons be treated equally. Clearly they added their own interpretation to that amendment based on the social environment in 1896. Fifty eight years later, the court, in Brown v. Board of Education, struck down the earlier decision allowing "separate but equal" (Plessy). This time the court interpreted the 5th and 14th Amendments exactly as the framers intended. That all persons are equal and that rights can not be taken away without due process, the words were very clear and concise. In both cases, the courts interpretation included a social perspective as well as the words of the framers. If the Justices would be limited to a jurisprudence of strict restraint, referring back to the quote from Justice Story, if the "words are plain, clear, and determinate, they require no interpretation", the court would have been required to decide Plessy differently. By requiring the court to decide one way verses another, the role of the court is subverted. The court must be free to include relevant current issues when deciding cases, they must read the Constitution as "Twentieth Century Americans" (Justice W. Brennan, Jr.) During our nations early history, economic rights were thought to be sacred. As society changed, that focus shifted to personal or civil rights. In Justice Brennan’s speech, he quoted the opinion from Weems v. U.S. [217 U.S. 349]:Time works change, brings into existence new conditions and purposes. Therefore, a principle to be vital must be capable of w...
