Living Document

[gravesdav]

How would you answer someone who says that the Consitution is a "living document" not static or rigid. This sounds like nonsense. They say the 10th amendment's "or to the people" means that the people can elect a federal government that will do whatever what they want.
I say democracy works at a local level best. But they say it always works unless people are uneducated. But wasn't Hitler elected Chancellor.
What is the best argument for a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

[gravesdav]

Oh and by they way, they disregard the founders because they excluded blacks and women.

[bah]

Well, according to the view of original intent, treating the Constitution as a living document would be circumventing the Fifth article of the Constitution. If you want to change the constitution, change it carefully and deliberatively via amendments, not carelessly and not through the whims of temporary popular opinion.

[Mesogen]

I've heard someone say, "When they say the constitution is living, they really mean it's dead."

But if you want to say that it's living in that it can be changed through amendment, that's fine, but saying it's living to mean that you can interpret it as loosely as you want to get what you want, then it's dead.

[Oddball]

Any of you guys wanna play a little 7-card stud with the same kind of "living rules"??

[mdh]

The constitution can be amended, and a specific set of protocols for doing so are set forth in Article 5 thereof. To this extent, it is a living document.

It was never meant to be "interpretted on the fly" by rogue judges. It was never meant to be simply ignored by rogue legislators or executives.

[Brutus]

If it is living, in the sense that it can be redefined to mean whatever the majority wants it to mean, then it is the same as not existing, so what was the point besides hijacking the popular perception of legitimacy for whatever that person wants?

It is a very intellectually dishonest argument.

[inibo]

How would you answer someone who says that the Consitution is a "living document" not static or rigid.

Ask them how they would like a "Living" insurance policy that the underwriter could ignore at will? Perhaps a "Living" mortgage interpreted by the bank?

[mdh]

If it is living, in the sense that it can be redefined to mean whatever the majority wants it to mean, then it is the same as not existing, so what was the point besides hijacking the popular perception of legitimacy for whatever that person wants?

It is a very intellectually dishonest argument.

Actually, the articles of the constitution, and the bill of rights (the first ten amendments) cannot be abridged, repealed, or nullified in any way by any future amendments.

[Brutus]

mdh,

On principle, I'm sure you are right, however, many of the amendments have abridged the 9th and 10th amendments, outlawing alcohol for instance.

[mdh]

mdh,

On principle, I'm sure you are right, however, many of the amendments have abridged the 9th and 10th amendments, outlawing alcohol for instance.

I am not right merely on principle; I am legally correct to the letter of the highest law of this land.

[Gee]

Disregarding the founders because they excluded blacks and women is like disregarding Newton because of Einstein's Relativity. The first place in the world where women could vote was actually New Jersey in 1776, and slavery was only allowed because there was no way the southern states would have joined the Union without it. We are where we are today because we stand on the shoulders of giants, and despite his hypocrisy, Thomas Jefferson and his ideas are giant.

Tell them the only interpretation of laws consistent with a democracy is the originalist interpretation. If they like democracies, they will recognize the idea that all power originates from the people and flows into the government. Therefore, laws are empowered by the people who ratify them. They are not empowered by unelected judges. Laws created by judges are illegitimate, and should be declared null and void. There is a law to amend the constitution, and it is very clear. Any usurpation of this is illegal.

Also remind them that the constitution does not prohibit any power, it only limits what the federal government can do. All other powers flow to the states, and to the people. Any power taken by the federal government is therefore denied to the states and to the people.

Alcohol prohibition wasn't unconstitutional, since it was an amendment to the constitution.

[Gee]

Actually, the articles of the constitution, and the bill of rights (the first ten amendments) cannot be abridged, repealed, or nullified in any way by any future amendments.

Why do you say that?