The language of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws did not change between 1896 and 1954, and it would be very hard to say that the obvious facts on which 'Plessy' was based had changed.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Just think, if I had understood my lawyer and if he and I had communicated properly in January 1958, this whole history would have been entirely different .
The thinking was that so long as the British kept our basic documents in their hands and so long as they kept the formal right to change them, changes in our system would be careful and deliberate.
It is becoming more widely acknowledged that it is better to have a good constitution than not having a perfect one.
The Constitution, as originally drawn, made no reference to the fact that all Americans wre considered equal members of society.
Lots of countries have great constitutions, but their leaders have a practice of ignoring the rules whenever they feel like it.
If there is one set of laws, one Constitution for every citizen, its protections hopefully applied equally to all, then why do the results seem to differ so radically? What do you call that? Look around - you're living in it.
Power's not what the Constitution was about.
There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.
Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.
The Constitution was about a limitation on power.