ider application than the mischief which gave it birth. This is peculiarly true of constitutions. They are, to use the words of Chief Justice Marshall, ‘designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it.’ The future is their care and provision for events of good and bad tendencies of which no prophesy can be made. In the application of a constitution, therefore, our contemplation cannot be only of what has been, but of what may be.If the Constitution was meant to be a document with supreme finality, the original framers would not have included provisions for change. If this blueprint of our free government is expected to survive the ultimate test, the test of time, it must be open to interpretation. And part of that interpretative process must include events relevant to current times as well as the historical events that led to the formation of the Constitution. In my opinion, strict adherence to one method of interpretation leads to closed minded opinions. Like any decision, many factors must be considered before ultimately deciding the outcome. Similarly, the court must look at the intent of the authors, the past history that led up to the event, and also the best interests of society as a whole. ...
