C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
That's not the argument. Debate over interpretation is legitimate. "Living document" proponents want to change the meaning as needed, without going through the amendment process. That just "cheating".
It's a circular argument. Who is going to decide that the Supreme Court made a 'living document' ruling?
"Living document" advocates admit they are changing the meaning. They believe that's necessary to address our changing needs. But that's what the amendment process is for, and they're trying to do an end run around it because they can't be bothered to build the consensus required to make their desired changes legitimately.
Nonsense.
It was the intent of the Framers to subject laws to judicial review in the context of Separation of Powers Doctrine, where the courts are authorized to interpret the Constitution when determining the validity of measures challenged by citizens pursuant to their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and finding such measures offensive to the Constitution, strike them down.
The process of judicial review is at the heart of our Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men which is why the Framers wisely decided to not make America a democracy.
Consequently, the process of judicial review neither changes the meaning of the Constitution nor the Constitution itself, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, where the process of judicial review affords society a means to bring to a final resolution the conflicts and controversies of the day.
To argue that the amendment process should be the sole means by which the conflicts and controversies of the day should be resolved, abandoning the process of judicial review altogether, is inane and untenable as the very notion is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of our Constitutional Republic, and would render the Constitution, riddled with literally thousands of amendments, completely useless.