Final answer:
The concept of legal positivism supports that law's authority comes from social facts, and it is separate from the view that the U.S. Constitution should evolve over time. Therefore, the statement linking legal positivism to an evolutionary view of the Constitution is false.
Step-by-step explanation:
The concept of legal positivism is distinct from the idea of viewing the U.S. Constitution as a living document that evolves over time. Legal positivism is a philosophy of law that asserts the authority of law is based on social facts and not on its intrinsic merits, morality, or any 'higher' law. Therefore, the statement 'The concept of legal positivism leads to an evolutionary view of the U.S. Constitution' is False. The evolution of the Constitution's interpretation, influenced by Darwin's theory, suggests that the Constitution is capable of adapting over time through judicial rulings rather than strictly adhering to original intent or legal positivism.
It's important to note that the evolutionary view, emphasized by progressive jurists like Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, holds that the Constitution must consider the 'felt necessities of the time,' which can result in interpretations that prioritize social ends of the era over the framers’ original text. This perspective, considered judicial activism, differs from legal positivism in that it allows for a more dynamic and responsive interpretation of the law, considering contemporary societal values.