What exactly is the practical difference between a living constitution and no constitution?

[Pedro de San Patricio]

A living, or loosely constructed, constitution is one which is taken to be capable of change through judicial interpretation. One court can rule something constitutional, but then another court can later overturn that ruling and find the exact same thing unconstitutional. The intended meaning of the document changed with time and circumstance. The opposite concept is that of originalism, which posits that the original meaning is the intended meaning and any change must be formally amended into the document. I have to wonder, though, exactly how having a constitution which essentially says whatever the person currently in charge judges it to say is different than the person in charge proclaiming their opinion to be the way things are directly.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The needs of society evolve.

The Founding Fathers had no idea that you would be riding around in a horseless carriage capable of 100+ mph and that you would be able to fly between the UK and here in about 8 hours and that you would be able to communicate with someone on the other side of the planet with a device that you can carry around in your pocket.

People were property when they put the Constitution together. Wives were property. How would your wife react if you tried treating her like property today?

So original intent is meaningless if the context of the original intent no longer applies.

Hence the need for an evolving Constitution.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

The needs of society evolve.

The Founding Fathers had no idea that you would be riding around in a horseless carriage capable of 100+ mph and that you would be able to fly between the UK and here in about 8 hours and that you would be able to communicate with someone on the other side of the planet with a device that you can carry around in your pocket.

People were property when they put the Constitution together. Wives were property. How would your wife react if you tried treating her like property today?

So original intent is meaningless if the context of the original intent no longer applies.

Hence the need for an evolving Constitution.

This is true, but there's already a legitimate mechanism for change in place called the amendment process. It has the advantage of taking the will of the public into account. Do we really need an alternate process that bypasses that and essentially gives unelected judges the ability to rewrite the document in their own image at will?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do we really need an alternate process that bypasses that and essentially gives unelected judges the ability to rewrite the document in their own image at will?

No we don't and since the court's aren't doing what you allege that is a non issue.

 

[regent]

The Constitution is too difficult to amend, after the Bill of Rights we have amended that document 17 times, while Alabama has amended her Constitution about 800 times, so other methods have been used to keep America moving. One method is to change the laws. So each year the Supreme Court is asked to look at 8000 challenges to the Constitution and it rules on about 80 or so of the challenges. So we obey laws that might be found in error if they went before the Court. Another method is we simply change something and we accept the change and no one challenges. Another way is we see something in the Constitution that might make the change OK so again we accept the change. What would America be like if we didn't make changes, one way or another?

 

[rdean]

No constitution is the one Republicans really want.

Living constitution is the one they imagine which is different from the one that's already there.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Constitution is too difficult to amend, after the Bill of Rights we have amended that document 17 times, while Alabama has amended her Constitution about 800 times, so other methods have been used to keep America moving. One method is to change the laws. So each year the Supreme Court is asked to look at 8000 challenges to the Constitution and it rules on about 80 or so of the challenges. So we obey laws that might be found in error if they went before the Court. Another method is we simply change something and we accept the change and no one challenges. Another way is we see something in the Constitution that might make the change OK so again we accept the change. What would America be like if we didn't make changes, one way or another?

Alabama is a red herring! The way they have it set up everything that passes the Alabama legislature is an automatic change to their Constitution. If the legislature decides to vote on the color of fire engines and decides that yellow is is better than red then every single fire engine in Alabama must be repainted yellow in order to be in compliance with the Alabama constitution.

So no, you don't want to go there with that argument.

The SC primarily looks at cases where there are conflicting rulings in the lower courts. Their job is to decide where the line is drawn when it comes to what legislation actually means. If half the courts decide that a law allows fireworks to be sold in every state and the other half of the courts decide that the law allows states to ban the sale of fireworks in their state then the SC needs to look at the law and decide where the constitutional line is drawn. Do the people have the right to purchase fireworks nationwide or do the states have the power to regulate fireworks to the point of limiting the sales to professionals trained in the safe use of fireworks?

If a case doesn't involve that level of decision then the SC can allow the decisions of the lower courts to stand if a super majority of the court agrees. It only takes 4 justices to agree to bring a case before the court so in this instance the bar is very low for judicial review.

As far as not making changes is concerned from the original Constitution the odds are good that you would not be a happy camper. It would still be legal to own slaves in this nation and that means it would be a pariah amongst the rest of the nations of the world. Your right to privacy would not prevent the police from entering your home and ransacking it if they felt like it. They would be able to arrest you and not be required to give you Miranda rights. The list goes on and on.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

As far as not making changes is concerned from the original Constitution the odds are good that you would not be a happy camper. It would still be legal to own slaves in this nation and that means it would be a pariah amongst the rest of the nations of the world. Your right to privacy would not prevent the police from entering your home and ransacking it if they felt like it. They would be able to arrest you and not be required to give you Miranda rights. The list goes on and on.

Nobody said we should use the Constitution as it was originally written. We said that there is a legitimate process for making changes laid out in Article 5. That process is the amendment system. The 13th Amendment banned private slavery. The 4th Amendment protects you from search and seizure. Both were edited into the original Constitution through the valid method and so will remain part of the basic law of the land until/unless an amendment negating them is passed. Or, you know, until a SCOTUS that doesn't like them decides to interpret them as saying something else.

 

[Derideo_Te]

As far as not making changes is concerned from the original Constitution the odds are good that you would not be a happy camper. It would still be legal to own slaves in this nation and that means it would be a pariah amongst the rest of the nations of the world. Your right to privacy would not prevent the police from entering your home and ransacking it if they felt like it. They would be able to arrest you and not be required to give you Miranda rights. The list goes on and on.

Nobody said we should use the Constitution as it was originally written. We said that there is a legitimate process for making changes laid out in Article 5. That process is the amendment system. The 13th Amendment banned private slavery. The 4th Amendment protects you from search and seizure. Both were edited into the original Constitution through the valid method and so will remain part of the basic law of the land until/unless an amendment negating them is passed. Or, you know, until a SCOTUS that doesn't like them decides to interpret them as saying something else.

You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts.

The SC is not doing what you allege.

 

[regent]

The Constitution is too difficult to amend, after the Bill of Rights we have amended that document 17 times, while Alabama has amended her Constitution about 800 times, so other methods have been used to keep America moving. One method is to change the laws. So each year the Supreme Court is asked to look at 8000 challenges to the Constitution and it rules on about 80 or so of the challenges. So we obey laws that might be found in error if they went before the Court. Another method is we simply change something and we accept the change and no one challenges. Another way is we see something in the Constitution that might make the change OK so again we accept the change. What would America be like if we didn't make changes, one way or another?

Alabama is a red herring! The way they have it set up everything that passes the Alabama legislature is an automatic change to their Constitution. If the legislature decides to vote on the color of fire engines and decides that yellow is is better than red then every single fire engine in Alabama must be repainted yellow in order to be in compliance with the Alabama constitution.

So no, you don't want to go there with that argument.

The SC primarily looks at cases where there are conflicting rulings in the lower courts. Their job is to decide where the line is drawn when it comes to what legislation actually means. If half the courts decide that a law allows fireworks to be sold in every state and the other half of the courts decide that the law allows states to ban the sale of fireworks in their state then the SC needs to look at the law and decide where the constitutional line is drawn. Do the people have the right to purchase fireworks nationwide or do the states have the power to regulate fireworks to the point of limiting the sales to professionals trained in the safe use of fireworks?

If a case doesn't involve that level of decision then the SC can allow the decisions of the lower courts to stand if a super majority of the court agrees. It only takes 4 justices to agree to bring a case before the court so in this instance the bar is very low for judicial review.

As far as not making changes is concerned from the original Constitution the odds are good that you would not be a happy camper. It would still be legal to own slaves in this nation and that means it would be a pariah amongst the rest of the nations of the world. Your right to privacy would not prevent the police from entering your home and ransacking it if they felt like it. They would be able to arrest you and not be required to give you Miranda rights. The list goes on and on.

California 480 amendments.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

As far as not making changes is concerned from the original Constitution the odds are good that you would not be a happy camper. It would still be legal to own slaves in this nation and that means it would be a pariah amongst the rest of the nations of the world. Your right to privacy would not prevent the police from entering your home and ransacking it if they felt like it. They would be able to arrest you and not be required to give you Miranda rights. The list goes on and on.

Nobody said we should use the Constitution as it was originally written. We said that there is a legitimate process for making changes laid out in Article 5. That process is the amendment system. The 13th Amendment banned private slavery. The 4th Amendment protects you from search and seizure. Both were edited into the original Constitution through the valid method and so will remain part of the basic law of the land until/unless an amendment negating them is passed. Or, you know, until a SCOTUS that doesn't like them decides to interpret them as saying something else.

You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts.

The SC is not doing what you allege.

You said that we need loose constructionism because the alternative is keeping the now inadequate unmodified original. I pointed out that this is false and there is a third option, which is the method of change given to us in the document. You say that I'm entitled to my opinion. Funny, that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Constitution is too difficult to amend, after the Bill of Rights we have amended that document 17 times, while Alabama has amended her Constitution about 800 times, so other methods have been used to keep America moving. One method is to change the laws. So each year the Supreme Court is asked to look at 8000 challenges to the Constitution and it rules on about 80 or so of the challenges. So we obey laws that might be found in error if they went before the Court. Another method is we simply change something and we accept the change and no one challenges. Another way is we see something in the Constitution that might make the change OK so again we accept the change. What would America be like if we didn't make changes, one way or another?

Alabama is a red herring! The way they have it set up everything that passes the Alabama legislature is an automatic change to their Constitution. If the legislature decides to vote on the color of fire engines and decides that yellow is is better than red then every single fire engine in Alabama must be repainted yellow in order to be in compliance with the Alabama constitution.

So no, you don't want to go there with that argument.

The SC primarily looks at cases where there are conflicting rulings in the lower courts. Their job is to decide where the line is drawn when it comes to what legislation actually means. If half the courts decide that a law allows fireworks to be sold in every state and the other half of the courts decide that the law allows states to ban the sale of fireworks in their state then the SC needs to look at the law and decide where the constitutional line is drawn. Do the people have the right to purchase fireworks nationwide or do the states have the power to regulate fireworks to the point of limiting the sales to professionals trained in the safe use of fireworks?

If a case doesn't involve that level of decision then the SC can allow the decisions of the lower courts to stand if a super majority of the court agrees. It only takes 4 justices to agree to bring a case before the court so in this instance the bar is very low for judicial review.

As far as not making changes is concerned from the original Constitution the odds are good that you would not be a happy camper. It would still be legal to own slaves in this nation and that means it would be a pariah amongst the rest of the nations of the world. Your right to privacy would not prevent the police from entering your home and ransacking it if they felt like it. They would be able to arrest you and not be required to give you Miranda rights. The list goes on and on.

California 480 amendments.

CA has a different system allowing the people to add propositions to be voted on that must then to applied to their constitution.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

A living, or loosely constructed, constitution is one which is taken to be capable of change through judicial interpretation. One court can rule something constitutional, but then another court can later overturn that ruling and find the exact same thing unconstitutional. The intended meaning of the document changed with time and circumstance. The opposite concept is that of originalism, which posits that the original meaning is the intended meaning and any change must be formally amended into the document. I have to wonder, though, exactly how having a constitution which essentially says whatever the person currently in charge judges it to say is different than the person in charge proclaiming their opinion to be the way things are directly.

Worrying too much about constitutional scholarship will make you lose your hair.

 

[regent]

The Constitution is too difficult to amend, after the Bill of Rights we have amended that document 17 times, while Alabama has amended her Constitution about 800 times, so other methods have been used to keep America moving. One method is to change the laws. So each year the Supreme Court is asked to look at 8000 challenges to the Constitution and it rules on about 80 or so of the challenges. So we obey laws that might be found in error if they went before the Court. Another method is we simply change something and we accept the change and no one challenges. Another way is we see something in the Constitution that might make the change OK so again we accept the change. What would America be like if we didn't make changes, one way or another?

Alabama is a red herring! The way they have it set up everything that passes the Alabama legislature is an automatic change to their Constitution. If the legislature decides to vote on the color of fire engines and decides that yellow is is better than red then every single fire engine in Alabama must be repainted yellow in order to be in compliance with the Alabama constitution.

So no, you don't want to go there with that argument.

The SC primarily looks at cases where there are conflicting rulings in the lower courts. Their job is to decide where the line is drawn when it comes to what legislation actually means. If half the courts decide that a law allows fireworks to be sold in every state and the other half of the courts decide that the law allows states to ban the sale of fireworks in their state then the SC needs to look at the law and decide where the constitutional line is drawn. Do the people have the right to purchase fireworks nationwide or do the states have the power to regulate fireworks to the point of limiting the sales to professionals trained in the safe use of fireworks?

If a case doesn't involve that level of decision then the SC can allow the decisions of the lower courts to stand if a super majority of the court agrees. It only takes 4 justices to agree to bring a case before the court so in this instance the bar is very low for judicial review.

As far as not making changes is concerned from the original Constitution the odds are good that you would not be a happy camper. It would still be legal to own slaves in this nation and that means it would be a pariah amongst the rest of the nations of the world. Your right to privacy would not prevent the police from entering your home and ransacking it if they felt like it. They would be able to arrest you and not be required to give you Miranda rights. The list goes on and on.

California 480 amendments.

CA has a different system allowing the people to add propositions to be voted on that must then to applied to their constitution.

Might check and see how many states allow that.

 

[Idadunno]

A living, or loosely constructed, constitution is one which is taken to be capable of change through judicial interpretation. One court can rule something constitutional, but then another court can later overturn that ruling and find the exact same thing unconstitutional. The intended meaning of the document changed with time and circumstance. The opposite concept is that of originalism, which posits that the original meaning is the intended meaning and any change must be formally amended into the document. I have to wonder, though, exactly how having a constitution which essentially says whatever the person currently in charge judges it to say is different than the person in charge proclaiming their opinion to be the way things are directly.

US laws started as precedents from England, and then upgraded.The US has a living Constitution--it changes to match changes in society (constructivism). England has no written Constitution and relies on precedents set down during past centuries, but also passes new precedents when the people demand change or the times demand change. They have charters, which are comparable... to a point. It is important that changes can be made, even if it seems insane.
Back in the day, Asian's were not allowed to own property or pass down businesses to their children according to state Constitutions--this started way before WWII. Prohibition was the 18th amendment, and the 21st amendment repealed it. Medical facilities update and upgrade according to new research. Nothing stays at a stand still--life evolves and moves on. One can move with it or crawl back in the cave and re-chain themselves to the post. (Plato reference--The Allegory of the Cave).
Keep in mind that the Supreme Court is the law of the land according to the Constitution. The Supreme Court can also change its mind if the argument presented before it proves its case. The question asked and proven is key. Why did the Supreme Court say patents on genes were not allowed but did not give the same ruling on stem cells? Because the lawyer failed to prove his case. He did not give the court the main piece of evidence needed to toss out stem cell patents. People think the SC makes laws, but they do not. If the SC had said... well, we know why stem cell patents should not be allowed even if you failed to know therefore you win... that is unacceptable. A judge could declare someone a murderer without evidence because he felt he knew. Claims must be proven.