The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 case of Roe v Wade on June 24, ending the nearly 50-year guarantee of the U.S. Constitution's right to abortion, leaving it to states to decide whether to allow abortion. Whether for or against, there are comments explaining the verdict from the perspective of "Originalism". When the Supreme Court documents leaked in May, Laura Briggs, a professor of sexuality studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, wrote in the Washington Post that “the U.S. Supreme Court is now composed of classicists” and “ready to overturn. Roe v. Wade". When Roe v.
Wade was formally overturned, there were papers criticizing the decision as a replacement for "Living Constituionism" by canonism. And canonism also appeared among the groups who supported the judgment. For example, they believed that the judgment respected the original meaning of the constitution, and some even pointed out that it was a victory Company banner design for the constitution . However, the author believes that discussing this judgment with the original text and living constitutionalism may fall into the trap of "packaging the view with the original text". Before delving into it, let me first explain what is the difference between "canonicalism" and "living constitution"? Living Constitution vs. Canonism "Canonism" and "Living Constitution" are long-standing debates in the United States.
The so-called "canonism" meanThe U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 case of Roe v Wade on June 24, ending the nearly 50-year guarantee of the U.S. Constitution's right to abortion, leaving it to states to decide whether to allow abortion. Whether for or against, there are comments explaining the verdict from the perspective of "Originalism". When the Supreme Court documents leaked in May, Laura Briggs, a professor of sexuality studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, wrote in the Washington Post that “the U.S. Supreme Court is now composed of classicists” and “ready to overturn. Roe v. Wade". When Roe v. Wade was formally overturned, there were papers criticizing the decision as a replacement for "Living Constituionism" by canonism. And canonism also appeared among the groups who supported the judgment. For example, they believed that the judgment respected the original meaning of the constitution, and some even pointed out that it was a victory for the constitution .