Is the Constitution a "living document"?

[segwaystyle2012]

Lol, no.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We should clearly put that 3/5ths of a person part back in.

[Scam of God]

It's neither living nor inert. But it is the height of stupidity to chain one's self to a two-and-a-half -century-old document. This is the same stupid mistake that religious fundamentalists make: reading into something a metaphysical meaning that exists outside of physical reality. From my perspective, I find it a mostly-objectionable document that, save for a very few elements (and these mostly in the Bill of Rights), ought to be scrapped.

[opebo]

Its plutocratic vision is alive and well, and the document is far too difficult to change or set aside, which was of course the diabolical intention.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No, but it can be changed; however, it shouldn't change without the people making it change.

[Scam of God]

No, but it can be changed; however, it shouldn't change without the people making it change.

There ought to be a far easier mechanism to change the Constitution than presently exists. The Amendment process is horribly convoluted, and if it were streamlined then this issue would be entirely moot.

[Sasquatch]

It's needs a much needed "facelift".

[perdedor]

I would rather it become a 'dying document'...but that's for another thread.

[minionofmidas]

It is not, but in many ways America just governs itself as if it was one.
And if you want to keep pretending to govern a country by a threehundredyearold text, that charade becomes necessary.

[Free Palestine]

Rome was a republic for five hundred years, before it became an autocracy.  They had a "living" Constitution.  Actually, they didn't have a written one at all!  We have a written Constitution that sets strict limits on government for that very reason, so that we do not go the way of the Roman Republic.  Unfortunately, even conservatives advocate ignoring the Constitution, and almost treating it like it isn't even there.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It's neither living nor inert. But it is the height of stupidity to chain one's self to a two-and-a-half -century-old document. This is the same stupid mistake that religious fundamentalists make: reading into something a metaphysical meaning that exists outside of physical reality. From my perspective, I find it a mostly-objectionable document that, save for a very few elements (and these mostly in the Bill of Rights), ought to be scrapped.

You sound like Scalia here.

[Franzl]

No. The Constitution is what it is, even if judges often interpret it to be something it isn't. The main problem with the Constitution is how extremely difficult it is to amend, which in theory is a good thing, but in practice can lead to several problems. Think about it, 13 states can block anything from being changed, and those 13 states can represent a laughable proportion of the total people.

Now certain things are certainly open to interpretation...such as the gay marriage debate on equal rights grounds....but things like guns are set in stone, IMO. I approve of gun control to an extent, and if I were drafting a new Constitution, I would not include the 2nd amendment....but the intent of it is very clear, and the fact that it is 2010 doesn't change that. The Constitution's meaning does not change over time.

[Marokai Backbeat]

We should clearly put that 3/5ths of a person part back in.

IT'S WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED!!1

[Free Palestine]

We should clearly put that 3/5ths of a person part back in.

IT'S WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED!!1

Hurr Constitutionalists are all stupid dumb retards.

[Marokai Backbeat]

We should clearly put that 3/5ths of a person part back in.

IT'S WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED!!1

Hurr Constitutionalists are all stupid dumb retards.

Not at all, just a little misguided in my opinion. The Constitution is a great document and parts of it should be followed, and parts of it were wrong that we have or should change. We shouldn't blindly stick to something archaic just for the sake of it.

Is the Constitution a living document, as per the question? No, not really. Though the people who interpret the constitution certainly are, and our interpretations of certain parts of the Constitution have changed over the decades. The Constitution should be changed regularly over time to adjust for new changes and modern society, that's all most of us ask, I think. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to cling forever to a dead and outdated document just because it's what a group of men 240 years ago decided was best at the time.

[k-onmmunist]

Bill of Rights should be kept though, especially.

[Free Palestine]

We should clearly put that 3/5ths of a person part back in.

IT'S WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED!!1

Hurr Constitutionalists are all stupid dumb retards.

Not at all, just a little misguided in my opinion. The Constitution is a great document and parts of it should be followed, and parts of it were wrong that we have or should change. We shouldn't blindly stick to something archaic just for the sake of it.

Is the Constitution a living document, as per the question? No, not really. Though the people who interpret the constitution certainly are, and our interpretations of certain parts of the Constitution have changed over the decades. The Constitution should be changed regularly over time to adjust for new changes and modern society, that's all most of us ask, I think. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to cling forever to a dead and outdated document just because it's what a group of men 240 years ago decided was best at the time.

It's not clung to simply because it's what a group of men thought was best two centuries ago.  Constitutionalists believe that the system established at the Philadelphia Convention was best, and all the changes made to it, such as with the Seventeenth Amendment, made things worse.

[WillK]

Yes, for 2 reasons:

1) Its amendable -- this allows it to evolve over time by adding or removing portions of it.

2) Its interpretable  -- its language is broad in many places such that a range of actions can fit under its terms.  For example, what precisely does it entail to  "provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States"?  This is a changing concept.

[Free Palestine]

Its interpretable  -- its language is broad in many places such that a range of actions can fit under its terms.  For example, what precisely does it entail to  "provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States"?  This is a changing concept.

Interpretation of the Constitution has only been used to back up a certain political agenda.  For example, during the New Deal, the Commerce Clause was interpreted to mean Congress could regulate commerce within states, when it's clear that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.  Same with the "General Welfare" clause, which has been used to interpret health care and other BS as being Constitutional.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's neither living nor inert. But it is the height of stupidity to chain one's self to a two-and-a-half -century-old document. This is the same stupid mistake that religious fundamentalists make: reading into something a metaphysical meaning that exists outside of physical reality. From my perspective, I find it a mostly-objectionable document that, save for a very few elements (and these mostly in the Bill of Rights), ought to be scrapped.

     I basically agree with this. There are some great things that the Constitution sets out, but I see no good reason for libertarians (or anyone else, really) to regard it as anything more than the means to an end.

[WillK]

Interpretation of the Constitution has only been used to back up a certain political agenda.

True.  So what?

[Хahar 🤔]

We should clearly put that 3/5ths of a person part back in.

IT'S WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED!!1

Hurr Constitutionalists are all stupid dumb retards.

Not at all, just a little misguided in my opinion. The Constitution is a great document and parts of it should be followed, and parts of it were wrong that we have or should change. We shouldn't blindly stick to something archaic just for the sake of it.

Is the Constitution a living document, as per the question? No, not really. Though the people who interpret the constitution certainly are, and our interpretations of certain parts of the Constitution have changed over the decades. The Constitution should be changed regularly over time to adjust for new changes and modern society, that's all most of us ask, I think. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to cling forever to a dead and outdated document just because it's what a group of men 240 years ago decided was best at the time.

It's not clung to simply because it's what a group of men thought was best two centuries ago.  Constitutionalists believe that the system established at the Philadelphia Convention was best, and all the changes made to it, such as with the Seventeenth Amendment, made things worse.

Well, then, yes, they would be all stupid dumb retards.