Marco Rubio: The Constitution is not a living document.........

[deltex1]

Perhaps the Constitution doesn't change, but what does change is how we read the words and the words seem to change with the times. Or maybe Jefferson said it better,
"No society can make a perpetual Constitution or even a perpetual law."

Especially if you want to get benefits for corn holing your roommate.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

A living document means that the contents are open to interpretation. That is not true.

Then only organized militias have the right to bear arms. Are you in an organized, and that means official, militia?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' it is subject to interpretation by the courts as authorized by Articles III and VI; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, which becomes the supreme law of the land, binding on the states, local jurisdictions, and the lower courts.

As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

The Constitution, therefore, codifies the principles of liberty, justice, and freedom, its case law guides lawmakers to enact measures consistent with Constitutional jurisprudence, and it guides jurists when subjecting laws to judicial review, and invalidating those measures repugnant to the Constitution when the people err and enact measures in bad faith, in conflict with that Constitutional jurisprudence.

This is the essence of the rule of law and of our Constitutional Republic, reflecting the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

A living document means that the contents are open to interpretation. That is not true.

Then only organized militias have the right to bear arms. Are you in an organized, and that means official, militia?

That's not what it says. You are wrong on that point.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

A living document means that the contents are open to interpretation. That is not true.

Then only organized militias have the right to bear arms. Are you in an organized, and that means official, militia?

That's not what it says. You are wrong on that point.

Uh, just looked it up and... You're right. Nevermind. I'm just gonna go back to libtard school now and hope it's paid for by the government....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

It can be changed...by vote of the people...not the whim of the justices.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

No one maintains that judges 'change' the Constitution, the notion is idiocy; judges use Constitutional case law when subjecting cases to review to determine whether a given measure passes muster or not.

And laws that fail to pass Constitutional muster are invalidated by the courts as authorized to do by the Constitution, where invalidated law in no way 'changes' the Constitution.

 

[KGB]

What the hell is a "living document"? Do liberals think the Constitution is "living" in that it can change and evolve with the times or is the word "living" just a romantic notion?

The first definition, and yes, it is a "living" document. The founders knew that the country was going to grow and change, and they made allowances for the Constitution to be changed. They're called "amendments".

That doesn't make it a living document. It makes it amendable. An Amendment can only be changed or altered through the Constitutional process. Prohibition is the classic example. It's supposed to be interpreted as the Founders wrote it. You want it changed, then follow the Amendment process.

 

[Steven_R]

What the hell is a "living document"? Do liberals think the Constitution is "living" in that it can change and evolve with the times or is the word "living" just a romantic notion?

Refusing to allow interpretations or extensions to an old document is silly.

No it isn't. If the document is insufficient, amend it.

It's a contract. It should be treated as such, not "interpreted" by a bunch of politicians.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution, whatever else it is, is a relatively brief and generalized document, given that it is the framework for the governance of a nation.

That is why the Constitution has a judicial branch to arbitrate disputes on what the Constitution means on specific matters.

 

[Silhouette]

No one maintains that judges 'change' the Constitution, the notion is idiocy; judges use Constitutional case law when subjecting cases to review to determine whether a given measure passes muster or not.

And laws that fail to pass Constitutional muster are invalidated by the courts as authorized to do by the Constitution, where invalidated law in no way 'changes' the Constitution.

Unless a Finding adds a brand new class of "just some repugnant behaviors but not others like them" to the 14th Amendment.

The Founding fathers meant that if any change should happen to the Constitution, it should change like an oak tree, not like a cheetah. We've seen cheetah changes. We need Justices on the Bench like Scalia. You don't drive a vehicle without brakes..

 

[ZackB]

What the hell is a "living document"? Do liberals think the Constitution is "living" in that it can change and evolve with the times or is the word "living" just a romantic notion?

"Living document" is leftist tripe that allows them to attempt change the meaning of the constitution based upon moral and cultural relativism.

Google "constitution living document" sometime, and you will see that many lawyers agree that it is a living document.

Living Constitution Law & Legal Definition

And many, many lawyers and jurist disagree. Scalia disagreed with the idea.

 

[bripat9643]

In the debates last night, one of the comments by Marco Rubio is that the Constitution is not a living document, and must be interpreted literally by what the Founding Fathers wrote.

Marco Rubio: Obama Should Not Appoint Supreme Court Justice - Breitbart

The Best Lines of the GOP Debate

If Marco Rubio is such a smart man about the Constitution, does he understand that the Constitution actually IS a living document? The Founding Fathers made sure of that and understood that eventually, as the country changed, the Constitution should be able to be changed, which is why they allowed for it to be amended as required.

And yeah..............in the spirit of fairness, one link is from Breitbart for the conservatives, and from ABC news for everyone else.

The Constitution is not a living document any more than your mortgage is a living document. It's a legal document, which means it's supposed to be interpreted as the authors intended it to be interpreted.

 

[bripat9643]

What the hell is a "living document"? Do liberals think the Constitution is "living" in that it can change and evolve with the times or is the word "living" just a romantic notion?

Refusing to allow interpretations or extensions to an old document is silly.

Not as silly as you.

 

[Anathema]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

No. They provided a means to ammend/edit the document. There is no means to re-read or reinterpret the Original document other than through the ammendmrnt process. It means what it meant at the end of the 18th Century, unless ammended to read otherwise.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

It can be changed...by vote of the people...not the whim of the justices.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

No one maintains that judges 'change' the Constitution, the notion is idiocy; judges use Constitutional case law when subjecting cases to review to determine whether a given measure passes muster or not.

And laws that fail to pass Constitutional muster are invalidated by the courts as authorized to do by the Constitution, where invalidated law in no way 'changes' the Constitution.

Please cite in the Constitution where it mentions judicial review.

It doesn't.

Have a nice day!

 

[OKTexas]

In the debates last night, one of the comments by Marco Rubio is that the Constitution is not a living document, and must be interpreted literally by what the Founding Fathers wrote.

Marco Rubio: Obama Should Not Appoint Supreme Court Justice - Breitbart

The Best Lines of the GOP Debate

If Marco Rubio is such a smart man about the Constitution, does he understand that the Constitution actually IS a living document? The Founding Fathers made sure of that and understood that eventually, as the country changed, the Constitution should be able to be changed, which is why they allowed for it to be amended as required.

And yeah..............in the spirit of fairness, one link is from Breitbart for the conservatives, and from ABC news for everyone else.

But you might want to note that Article 5 says nothing about the Supreme Court just altering the meaning of the written word, as an appropriate method of changing the Constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

It can be changed...by vote of the people...not the whim of the justices.

The justices don't change it, that is the job of the Congress to write amendments.

The justices just interpret what is already written.

Congress or the States can propose amendments.

 

[OKTexas]

What the hell is a "living document"? Do liberals think the Constitution is "living" in that it can change and evolve with the times or is the word "living" just a romantic notion?

"Living document" is leftist tripe that allows them to attempt change the meaning of the constitution based upon moral and cultural relativism.

Google "constitution living document" sometime, and you will see that many lawyers agree that it is a living document.

Living Constitution Law & Legal Definition

Only because the liberal law schools are teaching that way.

 

[ogibillm]

Rubio stated that the Constitution isn't a living document.

However, based on what the founders wrote, it clearly is.

A living document means that the contents are open to interpretation. That is not true.

if that was the case we would have no reason or need for a supreme court