Final answer:
Justice William Brennan used past cases such as Abrams v. United States to support the idea that the Constitution is a "living" document that requires interpretation according to contemporary standards and values, particularly highlighting the evolution in the understanding of freedom of speech.
Step-by-step explanation:
Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, who served from 1956 to 1990, was known for his belief that the Constitution is a "living" document. In interpreting the case of Abrams v. United States, Brennan could have used it to illustrate the necessity of evolving interpretations of constitutional principles such as freedom of speech. The Abrams case involved convictions for antiwar activism that would now be considered a clear exercise of freedom of speech. This case supports Brennan's claim by showing how past Supreme Court decisions can be viewed differently over time, emphasizing that the Constitution must be interpreted in the context of contemporary society.
The use of historical cases like Abrams v. United States highlights the shifts in judicial interpretation and reinforces the argument for a robust judiciary that must continuously adapt the Constitution to modern circumstances and standards of equality, rights, and liberty. Brennan's approach acknowledges our evolving societal values and challenges, questioning the assumption that the Constitution's framers could foresee and dictate resolutions to all future dilemmas.