Evolving Objective Standards: A
Developmental Approach to Constitutional
Review of Morals Legislation
Christian J. Grostic
Ongoing research in psychology suggests that structures of moral development are constantly at work, so much so that it is almost impossible to see the world beyond one’s own developmental structure. When judges apply changing cultural values and ideas like fairness and justice to open-ended constitutional ideas like equal protection, due process, liberty, and freedom, they invariably work within developmental structures. It would seem to be no accident, then, that the Supreme Court’s recent morals legislation jurisprudence can be organized relatively neatly along developmental lines.
Moreover, the developmental piece is sorely missing from the morals legislation puzzle. While a developmental approach cannot account for every detail of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on morals legislation, it contains important truths not included in other approaches. Most importantly, it lends a measure of predictability and reliability to the use of evolving standards in constitutional interpretation, an idea widely championed but poorly understood. Practitioners and judges alike can only benefit from a solid understanding of moral development in defending their clients and deciding their cases as law and society continue to evolve in the years to come.
Developmental Approach to Constitutional
Review of Morals Legislation
Christian J. Grostic
Ongoing research in psychology suggests that structures of moral development are constantly at work, so much so that it is almost impossible to see the world beyond one’s own developmental structure. When judges apply changing cultural values and ideas like fairness and justice to open-ended constitutional ideas like equal protection, due process, liberty, and freedom, they invariably work within developmental structures. It would seem to be no accident, then, that the Supreme Court’s recent morals legislation jurisprudence can be organized relatively neatly along developmental lines.
Moreover, the developmental piece is sorely missing from the morals legislation puzzle. While a developmental approach cannot account for every detail of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on morals legislation, it contains important truths not included in other approaches. Most importantly, it lends a measure of predictability and reliability to the use of evolving standards in constitutional interpretation, an idea widely championed but poorly understood. Practitioners and judges alike can only benefit from a solid understanding of moral development in defending their clients and deciding their cases as law and society continue to evolve in the years to come.
