SKU: 52599245703
ortlieb vario ps rucksack-fahrradtasche

ortlieb vario ps rucksack-fahrradtasche ORTLIEB Fahrradtasche & Rucksack Vario PS PLUS kaufen

$22.92 $25.47
Save 10%
No.2 Bestseller on streamingart.org >

Pay in installments of $6.37 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Sep 30 - Oct 5

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

ortlieb vario ps rucksack-fahrradtasche ORTLIEB Fahrradtasche & Rucksack Vario PS PLUS kaufen[short description] 2 in 1: Rucksack und Fahrradtasche Der Vario PLUS bietet mehr Stauraum und mehr Funktion Volumen ca. 26 Liter + Laptopfach bis 16 Zoll wasserdicht und strapazierfhig ideal fr Uni, Bro und Freizeit 5 Jahre Herstellergarantie [ short description] [Beschreibung] Fr den Vario PS PLUS gilt die Formel 2 fr 1. Das brandneue Produkt aus dem Hause ORTLIEB ist nmlich ein ausgeklgelter Hybrid, d. h. in diesem Fall eine perfekte Kreuzung aus

[short-description] • 2-in-1: Rucksack und Fahrradtasche
• Der Vario PLUS bietet mehr Stauraum und mehr Funktion
• Volumen ca. 26 Liter + Laptopfach bis 16 Zoll
• wasserdicht und strapazierfähig
• ideal für Uni, Büro und Freizeit
• 5 Jahre Herstellergarantie [/short-description]

[Beschreibung]

Für den Vario PS PLUS gilt die Formel „2 für 1“. Das brandneue Produkt aus dem Hause ORTLIEB ist nämlich ein ausgeklügelter Hybrid, d.h. in diesem Fall eine perfekte Kreuzung aus klassischer Gepäckträgertasche und funktionalem Rucksack. Die Verwandlung von einem zum anderen erfolgt in nur wenigen Sekunden durch eine clevere Innovation – die wendbare Frontklappe. Beide Systeme bieten dir, was du von ORTLIEB gewohnt bist: wasserdichtes, robustes und langlebiges Material, das nachhaltig produziert und verarbeitet wird. Und das alles Made in Germany. Mit seinen alltags- und freizeittauglichen 26 Litern Fassungsvermögen macht der Vario PS PLUS sowohl an deinem Rad als auch auf deinem Rücken eine super Figur – ein echter Allrounder, den du nicht mehr missen möchtest.

Der Ortlieb Vario PS Plus ist eine erweiterte Version des Vario PS. Zusätzlich zu den Funktionen des Vario PS (separates, gepolstertes Laptopfach für Geräte bis zu 16 Zoll), bietet der Vario PLUS eine erweiterte Fronttasche für zusätzlichen Stauraum für erhöhten Komfort. Diese zusätzlichen Merkmale machen den Vario PS Plus besonders attraktiv für Pendler und Reisende, die Wert auf zusätzlichen Stauraum und Komfort legen. Zusätzlich kommt beim Plus ein strapazierfähiges, wasserdichtes PU-beschichtetes Cordura-Mischgewebe zum Einsatz, das für seine sehr hohe Abriebfestigkeit und Langlebigkeit bekannt ist.

 

Technische Details:

• 2-in-1: Rucksack und Fahrradtasche
• Vario PS "PLUS" bietet ein größeres Volumen und zusätzliche Funktionen, die speziell für Nutzer entwickelt wurden, die mehr Stauraum benötigen
• Wechsel der Funktionen durch umschlagbare Frontklappe (180°)
• Schnell zu öffnen und zu schließen durch Rolltop (siehe „Zusätzliche Information“)
• Einfache Montage durch Quick-Lock 2.2-System (siehe „Zusätzliche Information“)
• Rechts oder links am Gepäckträger fixierbar
• Wasserdichtes, strapazierfähiges Material
• Wasserdicht verschweißte Nähte
• Volumen ca. 26 Liter
• Innentasche mit gepolstertem Laptopfach (16 Zoll)
• Reißverschlusstasche in der Flap (nicht wasserdicht)
• Seitliche Netztasche
• Belüftetes, komfortables Rückenpolster
• Anatomisch geformte Schultergurte mit Reflexgarn
• Verstellbarer Brustgurt
• Oberer Tragegriff
• Zwei leuchtstarke Reflektoren auf beiden Seiten
• Verstärkter Taschenboden mit Kantenschutz
• Nachhaltig hergestellt in Deutschland
• Smart Designed um es auch reparieren zu können
• 5 Jahre Herstellergarantie

Volumen: 26 Liter

System: QL2.2 System (Neu!)

Laptopfach: bis 16 Zoll

Größe: 31 x 47 x 22 cm (B x H x T)

Gewicht: 1550 g

Maximale Zuladung: 9 kg

Material: PU-beschichtetes Cordura-Mischgewebe (wasserdicht)


Ortlieb Fahrradtasche & Rucksack: 2-in-1-Kombi Vario PS "Plus"

Rucksack oder Fahrradtasche? Dank des Vario PS musst du dir diese Frage nicht mehr stellen! Das innovative Hybrid-Kombimodell lässt sich als Rucksack und Gepäckträgertasche nutzen, wobei die Umwandlung in wenigen Sekunden vollzogen ist. Einfach die Frontklappe wenden und schon kannst du zwischen Rucksack und Radtasche wechseln.

Bei uns erfährst du, was das Besondere an dem Ortlieb Hybrid-Rucksack ist und welche weiteren Vorteile dich erwarten.

Mit wenigen Handgriffen zur neuen Funktion

Der Vario PS verfügt auf der einen Seite über ein Rucksack-Tragesystem und auf der anderen Seite über eine Fahrradhalterung. Mit einer flexiblen Klappe kannst du innerhalb von Sekunden zwischen diesen beiden Funktionen wechseln: Die Fahrradtasche in einen Rucksack verwandeln und andersherum. Die Klappe wird seitlich und am Boden des Vario PS befestigt und deckt somit entweder die Tragegurte des Rucksacks ab oder die Gepäckträgeraufhängung der Radtasche.

Der Ortlieb Fahrradrucksack für alle Lebenslagen mit 26 l Stauraum

Der Vario PS ist ein echter Allrounder und gehört unserer Erfahrung nach zu den beliebtesten Modellen im Ortlieb-Sortiment. Die 26 Liter Fassungsvermögen sowie das 16 Zoll Laptopfach machen den Rucksack alltags- und freizeittauglich. Egal, ob Schule, Uni oder Büro – der Vario PS von Ortlieb ist stets ein treuer Begleiter. Auch für Freizeitaktivitäten wie Radfahren, Wandern & Co. ist das Modell optimal.

Der Rolltop-Rucksack bietet zudem viel Stauraum: Neben der Innentasche mit dem Laptopfach hast du eine Reißverschlusstasche an der Frontseite sowie zwei seitliche Netztaschen. Dank des wasserdichten Außenmaterials kommt dein Gepäck stets trocken ans Ziel – sowohl im Alltag als auch auf Reisen.

Schwarz und Rooibos: Diese Farben stehen zur Wahl

Der Fahrradrucksack Vario PLUS ist in zwei Farben erhältlich: im klassischen und zeitlosen Schwarz und in Rooibos, einem gedeckten Rot. Sowohl die Farben als auch das Design sind unisex. Somit ist der Hybrid-Rucksack für jedermann geeignet. Das Modell macht an dem Rad und auf dem Rücken eine tolle Figur und bietet dir maximale Flexibilität.

Im Test: Vorteile der multifunktionalen und wasserdichten Rucksack-Fahrradtaschen-Kombi

Die Rucksack-Fahrradtaschen-Kombi von Ortlieb kann nicht nur mit ihrer „2-in-1 Formel“ überzeugen. Sie wird zudem nachhaltig produziert und bietet dir Qualität „Made in Germany“ mit 5 Jahren Herstellergarantie.

Darüber hinaus kann die Hybrid-Tasche mit ihrem wasserdichten, robusten und langlebigen Material punkten. Das Modell besteht aus 100 % Nylon mit Polyurethan-Beschichtung, wasserdicht verschweißten Nähten und einem verstärkten Taschenboden mit Kantenschutz. Der Vario PS hat ein Gewicht von 1550 g und kann mit bis zu 9 kg belastet werden.

Auch der Tragekomfort ist erstklassig. Beim Rucksack profitierst du von dem belüfteten und komfortablen Rückenpolster sowie den anatomisch geformten Schultergurten, während dich bei der Fahrradtasche ein praktischer Tragegriff erwartet. Des Weiteren ist auch für deine Sicherheit gesorgt: An den Seiten der 2-in-1 Fahrradtasche befinden sich nämlich zwei leuchtstarke Reflektoren.

Tolle Nutzererfahrung: Vario PS mit Quick-Log QL2.2 und Adapter für leichte Montage am Rad

Durch das Quick-Lock-2.2-System (QL2.2) kann die Fahrradtasche mit nur einer Hand schnell und einfach am Gepäckträger befestigt und wieder gelöst werden. Die Gepäckträgeraufhängung hat einen Rohrdurchmesser von 8 bis 16 mm und kann dank robustem Hakensystem werkzeugfrei am Rad angebracht werden.

Ortlieb Hybrid-Rucksack und tolle Alternativen online kaufen bei Fair Couture

Wozu Rucksack und Fahrradtasche einzeln kaufen, wenn es auch ein Kombi-Produkt als praktische Alternative gibt? Der Vario PS kann dir beides bieten: Einen schicken Rucksack für den Alltag und eine praktische Fahrradtasche für die Freizeit. Mit nur einem Handgriff wird aus dem Rucksack eine Radtasche. Viele unserer Kunden sind von dem Modell überzeugt und geben in ihrer Ortlieb Vario PS Review 5 Sterne. Also worauf wartest Du noch? Schnapp dir den Hybrid-Rucksack in deiner Lieblingsfarbe!

Der Ortlieb Vario PS hat dich noch nicht ganz überzeugt? Dann entdecke auf unserer Webseite viele weitere nachhaltige Alternativen!

FAQ

Was ist das Besondere am Ortlieb Vario PS?

Das Besondere an dem Vario PS ist, dass er als Gepäckträgertasche und Rucksack verwendet werden kann. Mit nur einem Handgriff werden mit einer Klappe entweder die Gepäckträgerhaken oder Rucksackriemen abgedeckt.

Wie groß ist die Taschen-Rucksack-Kombination von Ortlieb?

Der Vario PS ist 31 cm breit, 47 cm hoch und 22 cm tief. Dabei hat die Taschen-Rucksack-Kombi ein Fassungsvermögen von 26 Litern und bietet mit dem gepolsterten Laptopfach bis 16 Zoll genügend Stauraum und Schutz für Laptops, Notebooks und Tablets.

Wie reinige ich die Fahrradtasche richtig?

Bei leichten Verunreinigungen kann das robuste Material mit einem feuchten Tuch gesäubert werden. Anschließend sollte der Vario PS an der Luft trocknen.

[/Beschreibung]

[Zusatzliche]

Größe Laptop: bis 16"

Geschlecht: unisex

Material: PU-beschichtetes Cordura-Mischgewebe (wasserdicht)

Made in: fair produziert in Germany

Besonderheiten: Mitglied der EOCA (European Outdoor Conservation Association), PVC-frei, Nachhaltigkeit, Klimaschutz, Umweltschutz, Fairtrade, Ressourcen schonen, Reparaturservice, wasserdicht, staubdicht, schmutzdicht

Brand: ORTLIEB, Heilsbronn, Germany

Anlass: Schule, Universität, Büro, Freizeit, Sport, Alltag, Radfahren, Wandern, Commuting

Material: PU-beschichtetes Cordura-Mischgewebe (wasserdicht)

Rolltop: Zur Erreichung des Schutzgrades IP64 (6=staubdicht, 4=spritzwassergeschützt aus allen Richtungen muss der Verschluss 3-4x eingerollt werden.

Quick-Lock2.2: Das QL2.2-System ermöglicht ein schnelles und unkompliziertes Befestigen und Lösen der Tasche am Gepäckträger mit einer Hand. Die Haken können ohne Werkzeug an den Gepäckträger angepasst werden und decken durch verschiedene Hakeneinsätze Strebendurchmesser von 8 bis 16mm ab. Ein Scheuerschutz im unteren Bereich der Tasche und an der Auflagefläche des Gepäckträgers beugt Abrieb vor.

Lieferumfang: Rucksack-Fahrradtaschen Hybrid mit QL2.2 Tragesystem

Pflegehinweis: Das besonders robuste Material kann bei leichten Verunreinigungen wie Staubanhaftungen mit einem feuchten Tuch gesäubert werden. Nach dem Auswischen die Tasche weit geöffnet an der frischen Luft trocknen lassen.

[/Zusatzliche]

 

[Versand]

📦 GRATIS Versand ab 35 EUR (Deutschland) | ab 99 EUR (EU)
🚀 Lieferzeit: 1-3 Werktage (DE) | 2-5 Werktage (EU)
♻️ Rückgabe: 30 Tage Rückgaberecht, sofern ungetragen & originalverpackt
🌱 Klimaneutraler Versand mit DHL GoGreen

[/Versand]

Shipping Notes
  • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
  • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
  • Delivery to the USA:
  1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
  • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
  • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
  • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
  • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
  • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
SKU: 52599245703

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell ortlieb vario ps rucksack-fahrradtasche

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.9 ★★★★★
Based on 14 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
A
[email protected]
Dallas, US
★★★★★ 3
Good to excellent content - terrible publishing policy
Format: Hardcover
Lewis (Not "Flewis") wrote a decent text a number of years ago. It was then expanded to a companion volume (Analytical Sedimentology) with another author. The two nicely complement each other but the mind boggles at a price of almost $100 per each. The publisher has clearly made little effort to control the cost. Redundancy between the two volumes is excessive, hard cover rather than soft is used and, indeed, both could easily have been combined in one less pricey volume. A valuable resource to students and professionals has therefore been compromised by publisher, author or both due to ignorance, greed or stupidity. A terrible shame!
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on January 5, 1998
J
Verified Purchase
JMB1014
Lake Worth, US
★★★★★ 5
An Excellent Introduction to Legal and Constitutional Reasoning
Format: Hardcover
This is an excellent introductory volume for people who feel confused by the debate over "original intent" versus a "living Constitution." David A. Strauss is a law professor at the University of Chicago. His book is a quick read (139 pages), with no notes, bibliography or other impedimenta - just an index. It's a very lucid explanation of legal reasoning and how the Supreme Court has followed this basic process over time. Hence the "living constitution" is really just an instance of the English common law tradition functioning normally. This book will teach many Americans how legal reasoning actually operates in practice. It is a common-sensical and conservative process that seeks at once to promote predictability and fairness. By and large, it has worked well. The phrase "living Constitution" has been denigrated by people who seek to turn back the calendar to a day when more "traditional" values were imposed by law. In so doing, they have invoked an historical fiction, the "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution. The myriad problems arising from this effort, if not its disingenuousness, have been discussed with insight and erudition by such excellent minds as Jack Rakove ("Original Meanings")and Akhil Reed Amar ("The Bill of Rights," and "The American Constitution: A Biography"), to name just two. The real point of this book, I think, is to explain basic legal reasoning to a mass audience. This does a great service. It also shows how naturally the common law evolves, how it tends to restrain judicial activism and yet to permit flexibility as times and circumstances change. As Dean Roscoe Pound of the Harvard Law School put it in his book, "The Spirit of the Common Law," the common law is "essentially a mode of judicial and juristic thinking, a mode of treating legal problems rather than a fixed body of definite rules...." This is a critical distinction. Some so-called conservatives insist that judges must simply apply the law like automatons, as if it were a "fixed body of definite rules." They then seek to enlist the founding fathers in declaring what those rules are, or how definite they must be. But as Dean Pound and centuries of legal history demonstrate, this notion is far removed from the truth, and remote from any useful notion of adjudication. All Anglophone law schools, lawyers and judges are engaged in the process Dean Pound discusses. The common law tradition arose in England over the course of centuries. We imported it to this country in part because it was workable and practical, and because it was brilliantly and systematically expounded by Chief Justice Edward Coke in the 17th century and by Lord William Blackstone shortly before the American Revolution. No one would suggest that the common law tradition means the law is the captive of judges' subjective whims. Such an assertion would have sounded ludicrous to the English as well as to the founders. But as Strauss - and volumes of legal history - unsurprisingly demonstrate, the common law tradition is the key to constitutional interpretation. The common law is an inherently conservative instrument. It evolves incrementally. Those who complain about the "living Constitution" argue that judges merely rule according to their subjective prejudices. They contend that it is the legislative branch that should be charged with interpreting the Constitution. Of course, all three branches of government must interpret the Constitution from time to time. But the legislative branch should not have the last word in determining whether its own enactments meet constitutional scrutiny: To borrow from Chief Justice Coke, no one (including the legislature) may be the judge of his own cause. The function of determining whether legislation conforms to the Constitution has been and still is wisely confided to the courts, which by virtue of centuries of practice (as reflected in published opinions) have substantial expertise in the area and are independent. One also hears complaints that judges are insulated from reality. But courts are not insulated - they are independent. And they are independent precisely so they are not subject to being influenced by lobbyists or terrified by a challenger in a primary election. To show how the common law works, Strauss discusses the evolution of constitutional thought in relation to two major issues: freedom of speech and segregation in public schools. He explains how the "clear and present danger" test in freedom of speech cases evolved, implicating not just such considerations as the threat of imminent harm, but also that some kinds of speech have lower societal value (libel, obscenity, fighting words), while other kinds of speech have more societal value (great literature, political speech). Strauss goes on to discuss how Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was far less a radical overturning of an entrenched precedent, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), than a logical step in the development of the law. In so doing, he uses an example from the law of torts, where customers injured by dangerous products originally were barred from suing the manufacturer unless they had a contractual relationship with it. At first, the fact that a product was inherently dangerous overcame the requirement of a contractual relationship. As it became harder to draw a line between ordinary products and those that were inherently dangerous, however, the old requirement of a contractual relationship was found to have outworn its purpose and customers were permitted to sue the manufacturer who had created a foreseeable risk of harm. Thus, in products liability cases, as in racial equality cases, the law evolved to meet the new demands posed by changed circumstances. Strauss shows the development of the law by discussing cases on racial equality decided after Plessy that gradually undercut the Plessy decision until it was no longer tenable. Strauss does what law professors do every day: teach the law by showing how it evolved. His explanation, however, is so concise and clear that it makes the discussion seem not just sensible but compelling. Thus we see that the law works. As Strauss points out, we never wrangle over some constitutional issues because they are cut and dried (you have to be 30 years old to be a senator) or because certainty is required (January 20 is the day the new president takes office, no matter how unstable the current domestic or world situation). Other provisions require more effort to interpret, but this is because the founders brilliantly provided that some matters could be spelled out specifically in advance, while others would have to be expressed in more general terms, which could be adjusted to changing needs and times (e.g., the "necessary and proper" clause in Article I, Sec. 8). Interestingly, Strauss does not consider amendments to the Constitution to be part of what makes it a living document, since the amendment process is so onerous, slow, and seldom used. He points out how some amendments merely ratified the status quo, or served to clean up outliers, resolved technical issues, or were ahead of their time. As he offers these judgments, which seem balanced and reasonable, he also explains some of the less familiar amendments in a way that will have readers raising their eyebrows and saying "Oh, so that's where that came from." At the outset of the book, Strauss sets out three objections to originalism: That it is often, as a practical matter, impossible even for professional historians to discover what the intentions were of various founders with respect to matters discussed in the Constitution. That even if an intent of the founders could be discovered, it would pertain to the understanding they had about their world: how does one go about trying to fit that understanding to our world? That as Thomas Jefferson pointed out, one generation is to another as one sovereign nation is to another. The world belongs to the living. The notions of people long dead cannot bind us in the present or future. Strauss correctly observes that the third of these objections is by itself fatal to originalism. The founders were not so impressed with themselves that they felt their "intentions" should be forever imposed on posterity. Had they been dedicated to such a dubious project, they would surely have done a better job of documenting their debates and compromises during the Philadelphia convention. But little remains of those deliberations aside from the notes kept by James Madison. The Constitution, moreover, reflects their understanding that the future could not be shackled forever to the time in which they lived. They realized that the slave trade, for example, would prove intolerable and therefore provided that it could be abolished by at least 1808. So was their "original intent" to permit the slave trade, or was it that the slave trade should be abolished? And what does this say, if anything, about their intentions toward the institution of slavery - a word that did not even appear in the Constitution until the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted in 1865? Most damning of all to the originalist position is what Thomas Jefferson said on the subject. In a letter dated July 12, 1816, to Samuel Kercheval, Jefferson wrote "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." He added, "Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs." He even called for revision of the constitution at stated periods. While originalists would love to claim Jefferson as one of their own, his words - and indeed his whole life - prove that he was completely at odds with their approach. Men like Jefferson and Franklin, who were devotees of science, were fascinated by the progress men could make in trying to understand and improve their lives. Jefferson was an eager student of nature and did considerable experimentation with crops on his plantation. He famously wrote his "Notes on the State of Virginia" to refute the widely read claims of the French naturalist Buffon about the supposedly weak, degenerate, and insipid life forms to be found in the New World. The idea that such men, who were committed to the growth of knowledge, would seek to confine all future generations to the limited understanding they possessed of the universe in 1787, is worse than laughable. It can only be explained by the polemical purposes of those whose arguments for a regressive social order are so feeble that they have to seek refuge behind an imaginary "original intent" that they erect - as if the founders wanted their limited knowledge and often unarticulated, conflicting, or ambivalent intentions to restrict the great national experiment forever. Given the explicit language of Thomas Jefferson, quoted above, it is apparent that "originalism" actually belies and defies the express intent of Jefferson, one of the most eminent of the founders. It seems paradoxical but it was his original intent that his original intent should not govern future generations! Original intent also appears anomalously restrictive when one considers that the founders never contemplated the existence of an Air Force, though they expressly provided for the Army and the Navy. And ask an originalist what the original intent was with respect to the Second Amendment's use of the term "arms." The founders had no concept of assault rifles or machine guns, let alone nerve gas, laser-guided bombs, predator drones, or nuclear weapons. How do we impose an intention on them to assert what they could not have foreseen, namely, that ordinary householders in the 21st century should have a personal, constitutional right to be able to obliterate a small army in a matter of seconds, based on the founders' notions about the 18th century saber, musket or pistol? Likewise, the Eleventh Amendment says nothing to prohibit a person from suing her own state - just other states. Yet even "textualists" read an unwritten provision into the Eleventh Amendment because it suits their view of how "sovereign" the states should be. When given this kind of a taste of their own medicine, originalists collapse in helpless sputtering and exasperation. Exposed to Strauss' very sensible discussion, the concerns of originalists reflect opportunism and disingenuousness. After all, we should not expect lawyers and judges to become armchair historians, especially under the time pressures of litigation and in the face of hotly contested issues. We should not pretend the founders had some monolithic intent, least of all with respect to matters of which they had no concept. And as Jefferson pointed out, the relationship of one generation to another is like that of one sovereign nation to another: we cannot expect to bind future generations by the intentions of people who are long since dead. In short, there will always be those who resist change and those who welcome it. If you really want to see "judicial activism" at work, you will not find much of it in the common law tradition. A far better example is the recent decision - by the so-called conservatives on the Supreme Court - in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010
B
Verified Purchase
Benjamin Douglass
New York, US
★★★★★ 5
An Excellent Read
Format: Kindle
The author talks about our constitution as a "living document" and expertly draws the distinction between this and the originalist interpretation as a "dead document."
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on October 5, 2018
F
Verified Purchase
Frederick S. Goethel
West Palm Beach, US
★★★★★ 4
The Constitution: A Living or Static Document
Format: Hardcover
There has been a debate over the past several decades on whether the US Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted according to current mores and standards or whether it is a static document that should be interpreted using only the meaning found in the original wording of the document. The author, in this book, makes the case that the Constitution is, in fact, a living document that should be interpreted by modern standards and by using principles of common law. There are examples given that, quite frankly, are very persuasive. For instance, if the Constitution were interpreted using original language, we would not have the freedom of speech that we now enjoy. A careful reading of the First Amendment will show that only Congress was prohibited from making laws that abridged free speech. There were no constraints on the states or on other governmental bodies. Whether or not you agree with the author on how the Constitution should be interpreted, this book will make for some though provoking reading and interesting discussion. The book was well written, fairly easy to understand and should be read by all who are concerned about where the Supreme Court is now and where it is headed.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 23, 2010
G
Verified Purchase
garynini
Battle Creek, US
★★★★★ 5
Clear, cogent, and illuminating
Format: Kindle
Clear, cogent, and illuminating explanation of the difference between two approaches to interpreting the Constitution: originalism and the Living Constitution
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on September 18, 2015

recommand products

Oakley DRT3 Trail Mips helmet
26.76
Lumos Kickstart Helmet
23.48
MELON Urban Active Helmet - DOUBLE GREEN PINK
21.27
Melon
28.95
ALAN Rennradrahmen R30 Carbonio 54,5cm Aluminium Carbon LoPro
23.66