Prove it:

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by NewGuy, Apr 6, 2004.

  1. NewGuy
    Offline

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Is the Constitution a "living document" open to revision?

    -Or is it fixed with the exception of ADDING ammendments?

    I was hoping to get proof to one side or the other, not for my own discussion, but to see who else has an opinion that can be backed up for me to learn by.
     
  2. Aquarian
    Offline

    Aquarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    440
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +1
    well, scalia says it's not a living document, so I'm pretty sure it is (somewhat kidding). Actually he makes some interesting points:

    http://www.afptn.org/scalia.htm

    especially the line:

    I think this has happened already.

    Still, even he admits that the it needs interpretation and it is the judges duty to interpret the constitution. He contends that it should only be interpreted as to the original meaning/intent of the founders whilst other judges believe it should be interpreted using the intent of the founders (as best as we can gauge that) colored by what we have learned in the meantime.

    Personally, I think that while it is a truly incredible document with overly prescient forsight on many matters, it is not perfect, nor overly clear, nor precise and therefore arguments over what it actually says will proceed into the forseable future.

    my 2cents :)
     
  3. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    I believe it has to be a living document. The founders simply could have not forseen the social issues as they apply to the constitution today. It may not even be possible to apply the letter of the constitution in many instances.
     
  4. Jmarie
    Offline

    Jmarie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Messages:
    457
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Iowa
    Ratings:
    +3
    Yes they couldn't forsee what would happen, but still they wrote it for us and how can we change their ideas. they were the ones who fought for our freedom and how can we say will we need to change what you all did for us. I just think that if would be a slap in the face to them if we change it. we might have to write our own if that's the case why not. If we are going to change that why not just change the flag colors, the moto and other things the defy this great nation. I guess that's my 2 cents..
     
  5. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Things can be subtracted as well as added. In its original form, the Constitution counted black people as only 3/5 of a person. That has since changed.
     
  6. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    The Constitution, I firmly believe, was written in a vague manner so as to be flexible and able to change with the times. Certain essential elements remain fixed, but the Constitution has been able to change with and grow with our nation for over 200 years. A fixed and rigid document could not do this.

    acludem
     
  7. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    If the Constitution can be interpreted to mean anything, why have one at all?

    "Living document" my ass. That's a fancy way for liberals to make it mean what they want. Under the Constitution, the federal government was never supposed to handle much beyond national defense and coinage. Now they fiddle with the tiniest details of our lives.
     
  8. NewGuy
    Offline

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Agreed. I have yet to see anyone post a proof for what they believe that is even PROOF. It is all opinion of how they feel.
     
  9. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    My proof: Plessy v. Ferguson - interpreted the Constitution as allowing for segregation based on race. Brown v. Board of Education - overturned Plessy, Constitution guartantees equal protection under the law, so segregation is not Constitution. Oh my, look, two different interpretations of the Constitution!!! Can this be?

    The Supreme Court has overturned itself numerous times. A more recent example is the case where the Supreme Court overturned itself on the decision as to whether gay sex between consenting adults could be criminalized if it occurs in the privacy of a home.

    The Constitution was never designed to be rigid. Rigid, inflexible things break.

    acludem
     
  10. NewGuy
    Offline

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    No, it cannot be, quite simply because there is no legal possibility nor power that is allowed BY CONSTITUTION, to SUPERCEDE the Constitution. Therefore, your entire point has no proof.

    Until you understand levels of power in addition to branches of power, your entire point is baseless.

    So what. According to you, the supreme court is the supreme ruler.

    Until you read our founding documents, you are talking out of your hat with a major misunderstanding of how a Constitutional republic works.

    Thanks for your opinion.
     

Share This Page