Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is a "living" document?

[AmericanNationalist1776]

I used to think not because I was under the assumption that if the constitution was a living document then there would be no need for amendments. However, I've done some research into the differences between Anglo-Saxon Common Law and Roman Edict Law (Civil Law). Since our constitution was written in the spirit of common law which is characterized by precedent, jury trial, and folk-right I now believe the constitution is a living document that can be differently interpreted as the American populaces opinions will be reflected in future precedents. Personally, I wish our constitution was more like civil law since I don't like the idea of the allotted broad interpretation in common law.

Thoughts?

 

[emilynghiem]

I used to think not because I was under the assumption that if the constitution was a living document then there would be no need for amendments. However, I've done some research into the differences between Anglo-Saxon Common Law and Roman Edict Law (Civil Law). Since our constitution was written in the spirit of common law which is characterized by precedent, jury trial, and folk-right I now believe the constitution is a living document that can be differently interpreted as the American populaces opinions will be reflected in future precedents. Personally, I wish our constitution was more like civil law since I don't like the idea of the allotted broad interpretation in common law.

Thoughts?

Yes it can stand and benefit to be amended.
But it doesn't mean it's open to anyone's interpretation.

It still has to be changed by consent and vote of people and states.

So, for example, going sideways through Congress and Courts, passing ACA first as a health bill then ruling on it as a tax doesn't count. That still should require voting on an amendment to the Constitution to explicitly expand the powers of federal govt to manage health care before taking this liberty from people and states.

Abusing judicial authority to make laws on marriage for the people and states is also outside the Constitution. So that isn't what is meant by the Constitution being a living document. It still has to be changed using the given processes instead of abusing political power to bypass representation and checks and balances built into the process.

 

[AmericanNationalist1776]

I used to think not because I was under the assumption that if the constitution was a living document then there would be no need for amendments. However, I've done some research into the differences between Anglo-Saxon Common Law and Roman Edict Law (Civil Law). Since our constitution was written in the spirit of common law which is characterized by precedent, jury trial, and folk-right I now believe the constitution is a living document that can be differently interpreted as the American populaces opinions will be reflected in future precedents. Personally, I wish our constitution was more like civil law since I don't like the idea of the allotted broad interpretation in common law.

Thoughts?

Yes it can stand and benefit to be amended.
But it doesn't mean it's open to anyone's interpretation.

It still has to be changed by consent and vote of people and states.

So, for example, going sideways through Congress and Courts, passing ACA first as a health bill then ruling on it as a tax doesn't count. That still should require voting on an amendment to the Constitution to explicitly expand the powers of federal govt to manage health care before taking this liberty from people and states.

Abusing judicial authority to make laws on marriage for the people and states is also outside the Constitution. So that isn't what is meant by the Constitution being a living document. It still has to be changed using the given processes instead of abusing political power to bypass representation and checks and balances built into the process.

I was going to mention the precedent that statutes set in our legal system. We do have a little bit of both in our legal system but common law is the most prevalent.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yes, as it is based on case law made up from the courts power of judicial review. You do realize why the supreme court is a equal branch of government, right?

Outside of the few limitations put in the bill of rights the constitution is very broad and allows the government to live within the time. If it couldn't do this we'd be some kind of backwards shit hole with a government that couldn't do the will of the people. I'd fully support a new constitution if it wasn't able to adapt to the time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives have been pushing the lie that the Constitution is a living document all in an effort to neuter it. Is your mortgage or lease a "living document" as well?

The Constitution had a built in provision for making changes to it, called the Amendment Process. Can you say, "Amendment"?

Starting with FDR, Progressive Jihadists realized that could get from the courts they changes they would never get by Amendment. Hence, the "living document" lie

 

[AmericanNationalist1776]

Yes, as it is based on case law made up from the courts power of judicial review. You do realize why the supreme court is a equal branch of government, right?

Outside of the few limitations put in the bill of rights the constitution is very broad and allows the government to live within the time. If it couldn't do this we'd be some kind of backwards shit hole with a government that couldn't do the will of the people. I'd fully support a new constitution if it wasn't able to adapt to the time.

Yes, I do know the Supreme Court is an equal branch of the federal government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution is neither ‘living’ nor ‘static.’

Its fundamental principles are enduring, safeguarding the protected liberties of all Americans.

It was the original intent and understanding of the Framers that the Founding Document be subject to interpretation, where the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized to do so by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

Constitutional jurisprudence is the accepted and settled law of the land, reflecting more than two centuries of Supreme Court rulings and well over 800 years of Anglo-American judicial tradition.

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.”

 

[emilynghiem]

The Constitution is neither ‘living’ nor ‘static.’

Its fundamental principles are enduring, safeguarding the protected liberties of all Americans.

It was the original intent and understanding of the Framers that the Founding Document be subject to interpretation, where the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized to do so by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

Constitutional jurisprudence is the accepted and settled law of the land, reflecting more than two centuries of Supreme Court rulings and well over 800 years of Anglo-American judicial tradition.

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.”

If its principles are enduring, I would call it living. Just like the scriptures are the living word of God where ppl take them to heart and embody them in lives and relations, I'd say the Constitution reflects natural laws of God inherent in the ppl as the government -- by the same spirit of Justice which makes the ppl one church body United in peace and harmony. I'd say the law is living through us, whether laws of the Church or laws of the state, the same ppl make up both.

 

[norwegen]

Yes, as it is based on case law made up from the courts power of judicial review. You do realize why the supreme court is a equal branch of government, right?

Outside of the few limitations put in the bill of rights the constitution is very broad and allows the government to live within the time. If it couldn't do this we'd be some kind of backwards shit hole with a government that couldn't do the will of the people. I'd fully support a new constitution if it wasn't able to adapt to the time.

You lefties think the Constitution is based on case law. You lefties, of course, are backward.

The Progressive, social Darwinist school teaches that law should assume an organic nature. That is, that it should be unpredictable, or something to fear. Whereas the likes of Woodrow Wilson turned constitutionalism on its head, believing that liberty is not fixed in an immutable law, the people of the era would say otherwise.

Though Thomas Jefferson was in France in 1787, his originalist view included not ony the Declaration of Independence, but also colonial history and Publius.

“On every question of construction, [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

 

[IsaacNewton]

I used to think not because I was under the assumption that if the constitution was a living document then there would be no need for amendments. However, I've done some research into the differences between Anglo-Saxon Common Law and Roman Edict Law (Civil Law). Since our constitution was written in the spirit of common law which is characterized by precedent, jury trial, and folk-right I now believe the constitution is a living document that can be differently interpreted as the American populaces opinions will be reflected in future precedents. Personally, I wish our constitution was more like civil law since I don't like the idea of the allotted broad interpretation in common law.

Thoughts?

You answered your own question. It allows for amendments, which means it can be changed as the times change. It is not dogma.

 

[DGS49]

The people who spread the "living document" myth are those people who would like the Constitution to say something other than what it does say (or in addition to what it does say), but know that they lack the popular and political support to have an amendment passed by Congress and the required number of states.

Such people have, for the past 100 years or so, silently and steadily have campaigned to get similarly-deluded jurists onto appellate courts, so that they could "interpret" the Constitution and laws to mean what they want it to mean. Just this week, Justice Ginsberg revealed herself for the political hack that she has always been, then after taking heat from her Lefty cronies, tried to roll it back. This was akin to a retired professional wrestler admitting that it's all scripted. Not really a surprise.

Any time you see an appellate court decision that runs more than 50 pages, the writer is NOT trying to explain how the law and constitution can be applied to the facts of the case; they are trying to explain why the Constitution MEANS something entirely different from what it SAYS. And this takes a lot of pages to accomplish.

Consider: the Fourth Amendment says, in essence, that the Government may not conduct random searches of people's stuff - they must either have a search warrant or the search must be pursuant to a lawful arrest.

And from this, we get the principle that the state of Connecticut cannot outlaw artificial birth control pills. And that states' sodomy laws are "unconstitutional."

Whether you agree or not with the propositions (and of course Lefty's tend to agree), the point is that there is NOTHING in the Constitution or in any amendment to the Constitution that gives the U.S. Supreme court the right to strike down these state laws. Those "Constitutional" principles are all made-up nonsense, promulgated by judges who believe in a "living Constitution."

Leftists are evil, anti-democratic, bastards.

 

[norwegen]

The people who spread the "living document" myth are those people who would like the Constitution to say something other than what it does say (or in addition to what it does say), but know that they lack the popular and political support to have an amendment passed by Congress and the required number of states.

Such people have, for the past 100 years or so, silently and steadily have campaigned to get similarly-deluded jurists onto appellate courts, so that they could "interpret" the Constitution and laws to mean what they want it to mean. Just this week, Justice Ginsberg revealed herself for the political hack that she has always been, then after taking heat from her Lefty cronies, tried to roll it back. This was akin to a retired professional wrestler admitting that it's all scripted. Not really a surprise.

Any time you see an appellate court decision that runs more than 50 pages, the writer is NOT trying to explain how the law and constitution can be applied to the facts of the case; they are trying to explain why the Constitution MEANS something entirely different from what it SAYS. And this takes a lot of pages to accomplish.

Consider: the Fourth Amendment says, in essence, that the Government may not conduct random searches of people's stuff - they must either have a search warrant or the search must be pursuant to a lawful arrest.

And from this, we get the principle that the state of Connecticut cannot outlaw artificial birth control pills. And that states' sodomy laws are "unconstitutional."

Whether you agree or not with the propositions (and of course Lefty's tend to agree), the point is that there is NOTHING in the Constitution or in any amendment to the Constitution that gives the U.S. Supreme court the right to strike down these state laws. Those "Constitutional" principles are all made-up nonsense, promulgated by judges who believe in a "living Constitution."

Leftists are evil, anti-democratic, bastards.

Quite right.

To add, for the "past 100 years or so," Progressivism has changed the nature of the Constitution with amendments that regulate not the government but rather the people. Though Prohibition was repealed, the veneer was cracked, and Progressive-style amendments directed at the people are still being ratified.

It is not the Constitution of 1787; the lefties have made it "organic."

 

[AmericanNationalist1776]

As I said, I prefer Civil Law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[regent]

Were the Constitution not a living document, how many times would it have to have been amended? Alabama's Constitution has been amended over 800 times. The biggie of changes to the Constitution has been the Court's discovering someplace in the Constitution that they were supposed to be in charge of interpretation.

 

[DGS49]

Regent-person,

Consider Exhibit A: The Death Penalty.

Clearly, this is a policy on which reasonable people can differ. But it is also something that is clearly sanctioned by the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment refers to "capital" cases which, by definition, carry a death sentence, and states, "...nor be deprived of life...without due process of law..." The clear implication is that one CAN be deprived of life WITH due process of law. The same sentiment is expressed in the Fourteenth Amendment, passed about 75 years later.

And yet we have a long line of Liberal Supreme Court justices who believe (and occasionally admit publicly) that they think the death penalty is "unconstitutional." To them, obviously, the word means something different than contrary to what is permissible under the Constitution.

Thus, the only way legitimately to make the death penalty unconstitutional would be to modify the Constitution accordingly, by using the procedures outlined in Article V.

But activist liberal justices virtually eliminated the death penalty (and clearly wanted to eliminate it permanently) by making so many preconditions, that no state could ever pass a law that was satisfactory (in their eyes). We only have a death penalty now because the people and the legislatures of many states took the pains to craft laws that met the ridiculous guidelines set out by the USSC in their decisions.

It's not too late. If Libs want to modify the Constitution to outlaw the Death Penalty, there is a procedure they can use ANY TIME THEY WANT TO, in order to accomplish that. But Lefties don't believe in democracy - even the American style, watered down as it is. They want to eliminate the death penalty by seating an army of judges who can "interpret" it into oblivion.

"Living document," indeed. Baloney.

 

[Anathema]

No, I do not consider it a Living Document. The Founders left us two means to change it....

The Amendment Process
and
the Second Amendment.

 

[regent]

The amendment process is too difficult, but changes are constantly taking place in America, so other systems have to be devised to keep the Constitution up to date.
Alabama has amended its state Constitution over 800 times, and the Supreme Court is yearly asked to take thousands of cases more than it can handle.

 

[foggedinn]

It is a political document. It not only means what it says, it means what people say it means in the moment.
Law is not political. All men are equal when standing before it and truth rules.

 

[yiostheoy]

I used to think not because I was under the assumption that if the constitution was a living document then there would be no need for amendments. However, I've done some research into the differences between Anglo-Saxon Common Law and Roman Edict Law (Civil Law). Since our constitution was written in the spirit of common law which is characterized by precedent, jury trial, and folk-right I now believe the constitution is a living document that can be differently interpreted as the American populaces opinions will be reflected in future precedents. Personally, I wish our constitution was more like civil law since I don't like the idea of the allotted broad interpretation in common law.

Thoughts?

I doubt you know what "living document" means.

You must have slept through 8th Grade US History and 12th Grade Civics and it does not sound like you went to college either -- college requires US History again.

"Living document" simply means it is subject to amending rather than being written in stone like the ancient Greek and Roman constitutions.

 

[yiostheoy]

I used to think not because I was under the assumption that if the constitution was a living document then there would be no need for amendments. However, I've done some research into the differences between Anglo-Saxon Common Law and Roman Edict Law (Civil Law). Since our constitution was written in the spirit of common law which is characterized by precedent, jury trial, and folk-right I now believe the constitution is a living document that can be differently interpreted as the American populaces opinions will be reflected in future precedents. Personally, I wish our constitution was more like civil law since I don't like the idea of the allotted broad interpretation in common law.

Thoughts?

Yes it can stand and benefit to be amended.
But it doesn't mean it's open to anyone's interpretation.

It still has to be changed by consent and vote of people and states.

So, for example, going sideways through Congress and Courts, passing ACA first as a health bill then ruling on it as a tax doesn't count. That still should require voting on an amendment to the Constitution to explicitly expand the powers of federal govt to manage health care before taking this liberty from people and states.

Abusing judicial authority to make laws on marriage for the people and states is also outside the Constitution. So that isn't what is meant by the Constitution being a living document. It still has to be changed using the given processes instead of abusing political power to bypass representation and checks and balances built into the process.

You should have said "by the Congress and the State Legislatures" then you would have been correct.