- Thread starter
- #221
of course it is a living document. the constitution cannot be changed, but our founding fathers provided an avenue for additions. ya.... that silly pesky amendment process which is actually PART of the US Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States
* * * * * * * * * *
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
The concept of the U.S. Constitution as a “living document” has nothing to do with the amendment process. Rather, it involves the purported ability of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to look beyond the original wording in the constitution and to interpret the document in terms of the needs of an ever-changing society. Here is what I consider to be a good explanation:
“'Living Constitution' is a term used to describe the Constitution's ability to change to meet the needs of each generation without major changes. This is a concept used in interpreting the Constitution of U.S. It is based on the notion that Constitution of the United States has relevant meaning beyond the original text and is an evolving and dynamic document that changes over time. Therefore the views of contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.
“There are many views for and against the theory of Living Constitution. The pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with long outdated views is often unacceptable as a policy matter, and therefore an evolving interpretation is necessary. Another view is that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. Opponents of the idea argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that the theory can be used by judges to inject their personal values into constitutional interpretation.”
Living Constitution Law & Legal Definition
My studies of various SCOTUS decisions has shown that in some cases the Court has interpreted the Constitution in such a way as to completely nullify the original meaning of the document, or to assume authority or to establish “rights” for which there is no supportive language. I will give three examples.
First, there is nothing within the Constitution which addresses abortion and there is also nothing in the document which grants a specific right to privacy (the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is not applicable); yet the Court managed to use the non-existent Constitutional right to privacy to justify a Constitutional right to abortion. Strict constructionists (those who advocate a literal interpretation of the Constitution) believe the issue should have been left to the individual states to resolve.
Second, the Fifth Amendment provides that the process known as Eminent Domain can be used to take private property for a public use - such as for a school or library - providing the owners receive just compensation. However, in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) the SCOTUS interpreted the words “public use” to include “public purpose”. With this interpretation, the government can take the homes of hardworking poor and middle class families and put it into the hands of real estate developers to build luxury homes, resorts or malls. There is no public use involved, but there was a stated public purpose: higher tax rates which would bring more revenue into the government coffers.
Third, in Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), the SCOTUS used the Commerce Clause to prevent two women in California (where pot was legal under state law) from growing Marijuana solely for their own private consumption. Clearly, these ladies were not involved in interstate commerce or commerce of any kind; however the Court concluded that by growing their own pot instead of buying it in the interstate market they had an effect on interstate commerce thus giving the government the right to regulate/prohibit their activities! The Supreme Court failed to note that such out-of-state purchases would have been illegal. The Court used the same perverted logic in other cases to regulate purely intrastate (not interstate) commerce.
The problem of treating the Constitution as a living document is that it gives a mere nine appointed-for-life justices who are not accountable to the public the ability to make law. From the examples I gave you (and there are many others), it is apparent that the decisions of the Court were agenda-driven and had no constitutional authority; in other words, the justices made law to suit their personal beliefs.
as i said, the constitution cannot be 'changed', but it can be added to by interpreting the law of the land.i believe the amendment process is part of that- by giving the states some control by ratification.
i never thought a lifetime appointment was a good thing, given that us humans have the great abiilty to decline in so many ways. but it's essential we have n odd number of justices. look at the mess it is creating since not even allowing the President's nominee to have his hearings.
as for that example you gave :
Second, the Fifth Amendment provides that the process known as Eminent Domain can be used to take private property for a public use - such as for a school or library - providing the owners receive just compensation. However, in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) the SCOTUS interpreted the words “public use” to include “public purpose”. With this interpretation, the government can take the homes of hardworking poor and middle class families and put it into the hands of real estate developers to build luxury homes, resorts or malls. There is no public use involved, but there was a stated public purpose: higher tax rates which would bring more revenue into the government coffers.
i am from CT & am quite familiar with that case. i remember it well. that lovely Pfizer takeover that seized that prime waterfront property & bulldozed those homes? they decided to boogy after a short time & it's become a vast abandoned wasteland.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html?_r=0
as a matter of fact, after that case, many towns in CT have added to their charters, not to allow for that to happen again.
He schooled you, huh?
Try to learn from his post, and try not to use terms you don't understand.
But.....that might leave you speechless, wouldn't it.
