Prove it:

[NewGuy]

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.

 

[Aquarian]

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:

Eventually, voters will choose and demand judges based not on their ability to interpret the Constitution but on the political positions they hold, he warned.

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

 

[Bern80]

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.

 

[Jmarie]

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..

 

[Hobbit]

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.

 

[acludem]

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

 

[William Joyce]

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.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by William Joyce
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.

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.

 

[acludem]

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

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
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?

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.

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.

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.

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

acludem

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Hobbit]

The Constitution was written so that it could be changed. That's what Ammendments are for. However, some things are vague and the people who wrote them aren't around any more to tell us what they meant. Such things as "necessary and proper." This doesn't have a clear definition. If the Constitution was such a clear and concise document, we wouldn't need a provision in it that allowed judicial review of laws. If the Constitution was rock hard, all we'd do is compare text and it would be absolutely clear whether or not the law was Constitutional. However, things aren't that crystal clear. Something needs to be there to define the vague terms. So who's going to do it? The President? God, maybe? Or perhaps our resident solid Constitution expert NewGuy would love the job of defining the document? The truth is that the Constitution is vague in several areas and has provisions allowing it to change. This was done intentionally because a rigid, unmoving document in a fluid, constantly changing world would eventually stagnate and die, forcing a coup in order to update the government to fit the people it governs. While I admit that the federal government has taken a few emergency powers and not given them back, against the Constitution, that doesn't mean that things changing at all is also against the Constitution.

Now, as for your "proof:"

First off, define proof. We've offered several examples in our history in which the government has either changed or changed the meaning of the Constitution, yet you still demand proof. So what is proof? Do I need to channel the spirits of the founding fathers to tell you what the Constitution is? Do I need to cite all the lines that have been removed since its inception? Maybe I should point out that the judges who have been defining the Constitution since its inception are still in power and have not been questioned until recently, when they have been making rather than overturning laws. Or maybe you are just thinking that you'll know proof when you see it. Still, I cannot satisfy your request until I know what you're looking for.

Second, I want you to show me proof that the Constitution is not open. Show me proof along the same lines that you are asking for that the Constitution cannot be changed or defined and then give me a solid, rock hard, indisputable definition of all the vague terms that have been given here, such as "necessary and proper." Either that or tell me whose job it is to define those terms.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Hobbit
The Constitution was written so that it could be changed. That's what Ammendments are for. However, some things are vague and the people who wrote them aren't around any more to tell us what they meant. Such things as "necessary and proper." This doesn't have a clear definition.

Lets start this in logical order:

Hobbit:
Now, as for your "proof:"

First off, define proof. We've offered several examples in our history in which the government has either changed or changed the meaning of the Constitution, yet you still demand proof. So what is proof? Do I need to channel the spirits of the founding fathers to tell you what the Constitution is? Do I need to cite all the lines that have been removed since its inception? Maybe I should point out that the judges who have been defining the Constitution since its inception are still in power and have not been questioned until recently, when they have been making rather than overturning laws. Or maybe you are just thinking that you'll know proof when you see it. Still, I cannot satisfy your request until I know what you're looking for.

Get off your high horse. Since you can't or won't read, I will help you.
Since you claim that actions of the past by a lower level dictate fact of subversion being ok, let us first establish the highest rule of the land to which nothing can change:

Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In other words,"This Constitution, or anything supporting it, shall be the supreme law of the land. "

Next paragraph:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

In other words, all officers of ALL branches support THE CONSTITUTION, not "The Constitution supports the Judicial branch".

In other words, all judges of all courts ARE BOUND to follow the highest authority in all the land, our US Constitution.

Now, let us clarify what power these judges DO have:

Article III
Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

In other words, "Judges' power extends to all cases arising UNDER this Constitution, or which shall be made under legal authority OF THE CONSTITUTION or laws within.

The word Under being the operative word, you would probably try to subvert that word too. Ok, lets look further:

--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

There was not one statement regarding "Interpretation" of Constitution. -Nor was there any reference to changes to be made by judges, nor was there references as to them ruling in replacing anything IN the Constitution.

They hold NO AUTHORITY WITH THE CONSTITUTION, but are BOUND TO FOLLOW IT'S GUIDELINES. -Not the other way around.

Hence, for misbehavior, and in DOING what you would suggest:

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

AND:

Article II
Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

In other words, ANY judge, along with ANY other officer of the United states civil service shall be removed from office in DEFIANCE OF OUR CONSTITUTION which is quite obviously a high crime, if not at least a misdemeanor.

Hobbit:
Second, I want you to show me proof that the Constitution is not open. Show me proof along the same lines that you are asking for that the Constitution cannot be changed or defined and then give me a solid, rock hard, indisputable definition of all the vague terms that have been given here, such as "necessary and proper." Either that or tell me whose job it is to define those terms.

Since I have just done all but given you the method of how to define your "vague" terms, here is how to do that. It is simple. Take it all in context.

"necessary and proper":
Article 1 section 8,

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Eveything following depicts what powers there are entitled by the Constitution to the Congress. Including the following paragraph you quote:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

In other words, "Congress has the power to make all laws NECESSARY (easy, only that which is REQUIRED, not OPTIONAL NOR HELPFUL) and PROPER (That which is in order according to the rules laid out previously) for executing the powers (in context according to what is vbeing discussed in this section) OF CONGRESS, as vested BY THE CONSTITUTION (our supreme law of the land), or in any department OF CONGRESS."

Again, simpler:
"Congress can make all laws which may be required and which follow the previous Constitutional law so they may establish and carry out their powers or their departments' powers as authorized BY THE CONSTITUTION."

Simpler yet:
"Congress makes only Constitutionally approved laws, if necessary, in order to carry out their functions as required by the US Constitution."


Quite simply, The Constitution is a fixed document of the highest authority. Ammendments are for clarification, such as was the Bill of Rights, and no other body may subvert it. It is all quite easy to understand if you take it in context.

 

[acludem]

The "necessary and proper" clause has been used to justify many actions. Do you think that federal government should be involved in law enforcement? It's not in the Constitution explicitly. Do you think that we should have a standing army, navy, and air force? The power to create these wasn't given the federal government either. Your entire logical based is flawed. If the federal government only did exactly what is said in the Constitution it would be useless, in fact it wouldn't have lasted as long as it has.

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
The "necessary and proper" clause has been used to justify many actions. Do you think that federal government should be involved in law enforcement?

1. I am not justifying anything. I am amazed how people take sentences and seperate them from context all the time to justify THEIR wants. Some of these people are Christians. Considering the Bible has more intricacies than this simple document, I am amazed how anyone can NOT take a simple paragraph in context.

2. Well, we need to look at what the Constitution says about that, not what I want.

I have never done a look through for that specific thing. We know a state has the right to police its own. We know the rights of citizens to have a militia and the seperate right of the Federal to have a military. My GUESS based on not looking it up, is that we most likely DO NOT have the right to a federal police force Since the jurisdiction would be impossible to define while keeping within boundries of the states having greater authority in law enforcement than the feds.

It's not in the Constitution explicitly. Do you think that we should have a standing army, navy, and air force? The power to create these wasn't given the federal government either.

Actually, it says that in times of peace, we are NOT to have a standing military.
The power to create these is by default given to congress as the federal law making body as described above. What I showed in the quote clearly defines the function of CREATING a military, if federal, to be a job of Congress if it is a necessary function following Constitutional law.

Your entire logical based is flawed. If the federal government only did exactly what is said in the Constitution it would be useless, in fact it wouldn't have lasted as long as it has.

My entire logical basis is written in plain English and verbatim of literal text of the Constitution. I conclude nothing. It is right there. You either did not read what I just quoted, or didn't like it conflicting with your wishes. Your opinion of the success of the document, if followed properly is irrelevant to the fact that it has been subverted.

 

[NewGuy]

-As a side note, out of all these opinions, not one bothered to bring up anything IN THE Constitution to support the opposing viewpoint as proof.

This should say something about the wilingness of our citizens to do the right thing or even LEARN what the right thing IS before fighting for it.