According to one view, justice is done when the courts observe and enforce the civil and political rights and procedures specified in the Constitution, without sacrificing or going beyond the perceived intention of the original framers. Under this view, justice is to be sought in a literal interpretation of the Constitution that strictly adheres to the original intention of the framers of the Constitution. Another contemporary school of thought considers this view insufficient for applying the Constitution in an everchanging socioeconomic milieu. Rather than being bound by the literal content of the Constitution, this view holds that the courts must lead the way toward new, progressive, and up-to-date concepts of justice by interpreting the Constitution and the laws according to the most enlightened moral and philosophic thought of the time. Opponents of this view hold that it is the task of the legislative branch to pass new laws to reflect evolving concepts of justice rather than to entrust this to judicial perceptions of evolving standards of justice. The essays not only explore these alternative views, but also views that incorporate elements of each of the two views. Chapter notes.