This has been a question of mine for some time. In college I learned that whether the Constitution is static or dynamic is almost wholly up to the person interpreting the Constitution. Here's the fun part. The SCOTUS has essentially stated that the US Constitution is a "living" thing. This to me, means the Constitution is dynamic. SCOTUS is to be respected. No matter how we may disagree, this court is what separates us from a vast majority of the world's legal systems. Are there party lines where there should be none? It appears so. This greatly disturbs me, but another topic. I am interested in how we feel about SCOTUS. Are their rulings solely based on precedence? If so, then are their rulings to ever take into account new "novel" ideas? If solely on precedence, is there any room for for " a change of times?" How do we interpret the Constitution? Recently there was a post here about the EU's Constitution; page difference, over 500 pages. EU's constitution sounds like a bunch of lawyers getting together and creating something so complex, that someone in a year from now will have to interpret its meaning. Those with legal a education should tread lightly, for they are armed with words, which at time can be more damaging than the sword (so the saying goes). I relish the fact that our constitution is only 11 pages. From a person who believes in God, I relish that there are only "10" commandments. 10. Only 10. The two given in the NT simply sum up the 10. Ever walk in a law library? There are thousands, upon thousands, of codes/laws. Necessary? Probably, given the complexity of society today. This is why I ask this question, how do we interpret the constitution? EU, well, they added quite few hundred pages. The US, IMHO, has been very successful with only 11 pages. Of course, this has been due in a large part to SCOTUS. Unfortunately, as of late, the justices seem to be picked along party lines. So, another question, is this okay?