Is the Constitution a living breathing document or is it meant to be interpreted as it was written?

Question

Is the Constitution a living breathing document or is it meant to be interpreted as it was written?

Answer 1

It's a living document.

Answer 2

A little bit of both. i think you obviously have look at it differently afterall it HAS been a while. but i think you should still look at what it was meant to be

Answer 3

I believe it was meant to be re-interpreted as the times change.  Otherwise, our founding fathers would not have included a process for amending the Constitution.

Answer 4

It's a legal document, it's supposed to be interpreted by law language.  Of course, people have been asking the same question about the Bible for millennium.

Answer 5

"Breathing" ...lol I've never heard that added.  It was certainly meant to be interpreted as writtem, but such an interpretation was abandoned in the early/mid 20th century.

The "living document" arguments have a shred of validity.  Certainly the framers never considered TV signals when they wrote the interstate commerce clause.  Applying the document to new situations unavoidably calls for some interpretation.

However, the judiciary, backed by major US law schools, have allowed tortured logic to justify a full abandonment of consistutional principles.  The danger is the the current standard for judging a law is (1) Judge applies personal political view to determine whether a law is good (2) Once determination of "goodness" is made, accept any argument to allow or disallow some government action.  In step 2 it has become permissible to disregard clearly written limitations and precedents or to introduce wholly new principles.

Note that public arguments about Roe v. Wade, for example, have centered completely on whether abortion should or should not be legal.  Sparingly little has been written about what that decision has done in terms of politicizing the court itself.

Answer 6

Both.  It should be interpreted as written, but it is a living document as we can add ammendmants as need arises and situations change.

Answer 7

Let's see now. If the writers had meant it to be extremely flexible, do you think they would have specified a very specific process by which to amend it?

Answer 8

What you said is the exact same thing.

Answer 9

It is to be interpreted as it is written.  There are two clearly outlined procedures for making changes:  by Amendment to the Constitution and by Constitutional Convention.

Your first answer is wrong.  Left wing liberal loonies, who don't want to be limited by laws, are the ones claiming it is all right to rewrite anything we wish as we go along.

Answer 10

I prefer that it be read as it was written, taking into account the understanding and intention of the authors.  Otherwise it can get stretched and bend into anything, becoming meaningless.

That does not mean that it doesn't have flexibility.  I think that constitutional principles are there and get there only if they are representative of ideas so compelling, that people of different beliefs can agree enough to put them there through such a difficult process.  So at the end, the Constitution has only universally accepted principles to guide our government to have a legal code acceptable; and, we have a document that in such a condition, can be flexible and useful in any period, even when we take it as it was written and intended by the authors of each part.

Answer 11

Contrary to conventional wisdom carried forth by Socialsits, the Constitution is a contract between the people and their government and like any other contract is meant to be interpreted as written. The Framers understood that societies change and therefore would need a means by which to make alteration s to that contract when needed. Thus they included Article V which is completely ignored today. Article V set forth the Amendment process which did not include the Supreme Court. Any changes to the document were to be made by the people themselves via a super-majority. Obviously Socialists find this too restrictive as it means risking defeat at the ballot box. It was far easier to coerce changes from the bench. This is why the courts became so instrumental in the political process for Socialists. Funny thing is, the framers feared such a development when they first debated the creation of a Supreme Court:

“The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous…..the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless.” (The Federalist Papers)

It is interesting to note that Alexander Hamilton dismissed these objections as “made up of false reasoning upon misconceived facts.” Hamilton lost the debate. The Supreme Court was not vested with any power to construe the Constitution beyond the expressed letter of the law and when the desires of the people or the acts of legislators are at variance with the Constitution, the Constitution shall be the superior. It does not grant the Court the power to rule via Stare Decisis. And above all it does not grant the Courts legislative authority. Keep in mend that the Writ of Mandamus which was the basis of the Marbury decision was ruled unconstitutional. Otherwise the Courts would in essence be a super-Legislature.

Answer 12

According to the prezident it is nothing but a GD piece of paper.