Meaning: This quote by William Brennan, Jr., a former Supreme Court Justice, encapsulates the evolving nature of legal interpretation and the significance of understanding the contemporary context in which laws and legal texts are applied. In essence, Brennan emphasizes the importance of considering the original intent of the framers of a law or legal document, as well as the historical interpretations that have shaped its meaning over time. However, he also stresses that the ultimate concern should be to discern the relevance and implications of the text in the present day.

When analyzing this quote, it's essential to consider the broader context of legal interpretation and the role of the judiciary in applying and interpreting laws. The concept of originalism, which emphasizes interpreting the Constitution and laws based on their original meaning at the time of their enactment, has been a topic of significant debate in legal circles. Proponents of originalism argue that the original intent of the framers should guide judicial interpretation, while critics contend that such an approach may not account for the changing societal norms and values.

Brennan's quote reflects a more dynamic and adaptive approach to legal interpretation, acknowledging the importance of historical context while emphasizing the need to assess the contemporary relevance of legal texts. This view aligns with the concept of living constitutionalism, which suggests that the Constitution and laws should be interpreted in a manner that adapts to the evolving values and circumstances of society.

The phrase "history of the time of framing" alludes to the significance of understanding the historical and societal context in which laws were originally crafted. This historical perspective provides insight into the intentions and motivations of the framers, shedding light on the underlying principles and objectives that shaped the legal text. By examining the circumstances surrounding the creation of a law or legal document, interpreters can gain a deeper understanding of its original meaning and purpose.

Furthermore, Brennan's reference to the "intervening history of interpretation" underscores the notion that legal texts are subject to evolving interpretations and applications over time. Judicial decisions, scholarly analyses, and societal developments all contribute to the ongoing interpretation of laws, shaping their meaning and implications in diverse ways. This acknowledgment of the dynamic nature of legal interpretation highlights the need for a nuanced and contextual approach to understanding the implications of legal texts.

The pivotal question posed by Brennan – "what do the words of the text mean in our time" – encapsulates the crux of his philosophy on legal interpretation. This inquiry underscores the imperative of assessing the contemporary relevance and implications of legal texts in the context of present-day societal norms, values, and challenges. It emphasizes the need for interpreters, including judges, to consider how the words and provisions of a law apply to the current societal landscape and address contemporary issues and concerns.

In conclusion, William Brennan, Jr.'s quote encapsulates a nuanced and dynamic approach to legal interpretation, emphasizing the importance of understanding the historical context while prioritizing the contemporary relevance of legal texts. By acknowledging the evolving nature of societal values and circumstances, Brennan's perspective underscores the need for a flexible and contextually sensitive approach to legal interpretation, aligning with the principles of living constitutionalism and the adaptive nature of the law in a changing society.