The Living Constitution’s Double Standard

National Review Online ^ | August 23, 2006 | Jonah Goldberg

[Wonder Warthog]

"The problem with viewing the Constitution as a "living document" is that living things suffer from disease, ultimately decay and finally die."

The Constitution has ALWAYS been a "living document", as it can be amended at any time by its own internal rules. The problem is have the Constitution CHANGED in meaning by "judicial fiat" bypassing the amendment process.

[Steve_Seattle]

"It seems absurd to suggest that we can change the speed limit to reflect improved technology but we cannot interpret the Constitution to reflect improvements in society.”

This person does not seem to understand that the Constitution is "the supreme law of the land," and that laws (and the words that express them) must have a fixed meaning in order for people to properly interpret and obey the law. NEW laws - or constitutional amendments - can be created to reflect changes in society, technology, or public views of morality. To allow judges to impose novel interpretations on the Constitution is fundamentally to abrogate the Constitution.

[william clark]

I disagree with the application of the term "living document." Just because it can be changed, doesn't make it "living," any more than a house is living because I add a room or enclose a deck. The liberals' use of the term "living" suggests more than the ability to be changed. It implies a constant state of reinterpretation to correspond with whatever is going on in society, with THAT as the standard of what the document should reflect, instead of the other way around.

[slowhandluke]

This person does not seem to understand that the Constitution is "the supreme law of the land," and that laws (and the words that express them) must have a fixed meaning in order for people to properly interpret and obey the law.

Oh, they very well do or they would not have to craft the proposition so cleverly.

"It seems absurd to suggest that we can change the speed limit (by voting) to reflect improved technology but we cannot interpret (by judical fiat) the Constitution to reflect improvements in society.”

You don't come up with such apples-to-oranges arguments without considerable thought, and a good understanding of what you want to bait and switch: In this case law change by vote in exchange for law change by judical fiat.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The liberals' use of the term "living" suggests more than the ability to be changed. It implies a constant state of reinterpretation to correspond with whatever is going on in society, with THAT as the standard of what the document should reflect, instead of the other way around."

Disagree. The Constitution IS under a constant state of scrutiny, and can be amended at any time. That makes it a "living document". "Magna Charta" is an example of a "non-living" document.

[william clark]

You're missing my point. There is a difference between a document that is constantly scrutinized and CAN be amended at any time by a specified process, and a philosophical presumption that it SHOULD constantly be reinterpreted based on societal evolution. In other words, the "living document" view puts the cart in front of the horse and renders the document essentially worthless by making it subject to cultural whim rather than firmly establishing the principals on which said society is to function.

[Wonder Warthog]

"You're missing my point. There is a difference between a document that is constantly scrutinized and CAN be amended at any time by a specified process, and a philosophical presumption that it SHOULD constantly be reinterpreted based on societal evolution. In other words, the "living document" view puts the cart in front of the horse and renders the document essentially worthless by making it subject to cultural whim rather than firmly establishing the principals on which said society is to function."

I'm not missing the point at all. Your point is simply wrong. I pointed that out in the original post. It is the LIBERALS who are mis-using the term "living document" by re-defining it as "constant re-interpretation". But the liberals "do" love to re-define language's meaning.

[william clark]

I stand by my statements. "Living" implies a state of entropy that should not exist with the Constitution. You disagree, take it up with Webster.