0

I'm reading a book about the US Constitution and this sentence really throws me off. It says:

[To treat the Constitution] like a statute whose words carried the same meaning they did in 1787 in Philadelphia no more accorded with Ginsburg’s view of an initially flawed but evolving document than it did with Thurgood Marshall’s view of the Constitution.

What does it mean? Does Ginsburg agree with Marshall more than she does the "originalists?" Or does she disagree with both equally? Thanks!

1
  • 1
    " ... no more accorded with ..." means " didn't accord with". But you also have to change "than it did" to something like "any more than it did".
    – Phil Sweet
    Jun 16, 2021 at 9:37

1 Answer 1

1

[To treat the Constitution] like a statute whose words carried the same meaning they did in 1787 in Philadelphia no more accorded with Ginsburg’s view of an initially flawed but evolving document than it did with Thurgood Marshall’s view of the Constitution.

In the sentence under consideration, there are three general ways of treating the US Constitution:

  1. Like a statute, whose wording and meaning do not change with time

  2. Like an initially flawed but evolving document, which is Ginsberg's view

  3. Like Thurgood Marshall’s view of the Constitution (which is not specified here)

The statement is saying that neither Ginsberg nor Marshall consider the Constitution to be like a statute, unchanging over the years. We do not know exactly what Marshall's view is of the Constitution, but we know that he does not consider the Constitution to be like a static and unchanging law.

Following Phil Sweet's comment, above, you could make the statement much wordier by having it say:

[To treat the Constitution] like a statute whose words carried the same meaning they did in 1787 in Philadelphia did not accord with Ginsburg’s view of an initially flawed but evolving document any more than it did with Thurgood Marshall’s view of the Constitution.

You must log in to answer this question.