The rest of the page wasn't written by him. Did you even read the page? Or did you just click on the link and look at the top and think that was enough?
So what part did he write?
The only thing on that page that was written by him is the quote at the top of the page... like I just told you.
"The republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith."
- CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES
Cornerstone Address - Supreme Court Building
How do I know this? Maybe because I read it and there is this line...
"The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed."
Now, his opinion is covered on that page, but so is several Justices. But you would only know that if you read it. And here is an important paragraph...
"The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining aw
"living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations."
The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States
The Constitution only provided the general government the powers “expressly delegated to it”
The plain understanding that the Constitution only gave the general government the powers that were specifically enumerated was not a “theory” during the Constitution’s writing or adoption by the states. On the contrary, it was the only understanding reached by the states, and held until modern reinterpretations of the Constitution took hold. From the origin of the ratification debates, James Wilson’s “State House Yard Speech” confirms this to be the case. To the accusation that the Constitution gave the general government powers which were not explicitly stated, Wilson responded to such an assertion by noting that “everything which is not given is reserved.” Wilson said that power in the Constitution is not granted by “tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union.
If the Constitutional model was truly that of a “living document,” an inquisitive mind may question why the founders made the document extremely difficult to alter through the amendment process notated in Article V. The notion that the states will easily come to the same conclusion on adjusting the Constitution is a faulty one
It is irrefutable that founders made the document difficult to alter for a reason. Those who espouse views to the contrary do not seek to consider the document “living” because it can be changed; they strive to misinterpret specific clauses within the document to justify actions of an almost unlimited variety, using such content to draw upon a vast reservoir of untapped power. Thomas Jefferson wrote that by doing so, Congress “is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” The tendency to do so was considered constitutionally erroneous and invalid.
Those who advocate the “living document” doctrine typically point to several clauses within the Constitution’s text to justify these views. These clauses are sometimes referred to as the “elastic clauses.” Patrick Henry, a persuasive opponent of the United States Constitution, called them “sweeping clauses” because he believed they would provide overwhelming power to the general government and act to eradicate the power of the states. When it came to Henry and many other voices of opposition, the antagonists were swiftly rebuked by those who were responsible for bringing the states to an understanding of what the Constitution did.
