Anyone who says the Constitution of the United States is a ‘living document’ is a budding fascist. Your rights should be carved in stone and immutable through any action of man.
Discuss.
2006-07-11 07:29:50 · 12 answers · asked by Day of Acerbity 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's a valid paper document. Paper documents are not capable of living.
2006-07-11 08:28:50 · answer #1 · answered by karkondrite 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Your conclusion about believing the US Constitution is a living document is flawed. As an absolute, it does not allow for conditions which could affect the result. As a student of history and government, I know that I am not a "budding fascist" and I believe that the US Constitution is a living document. Our rights as guaranteed by both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are protected and basically held immutable, subject to presiding conditions of application. For example, we have the right to free speech, yet it does not extend to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. The right of public safety trumps the right of free speech in that case.
2006-07-11 07:40:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Morally it is a living document, but really I believe so many new laws have come out and extensions to existing laws that it's scary to see how many right are being taken away and how many people not only in politics but on the streets are contributing to why the old fashioned basic constitution has changed. Think before you support any new changes, weigh consequences, and look in the future to see if the new laws will come back to bite you in the ***, even if it something that should not be a punishable offense.
This probably makes more sense in my head than written.
Personally I believe "God" should stay in the pledge. Are non-believers so up tight that they can't see that if only on a belief this country's original laws were made. If it weren't for those original Pilgrims, and original texts including the word "God" we wouldn't be here to have the right to not believe in "God".
OK I suppose now I'm rambling.
2006-07-11 07:42:25 · answer #3 · answered by Nicole 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Call me a fascist then but it is a living document. The issue is that it takes a lot to add to it or change it. Bills have to be submitted, debated, voted on then sent to the states for ratification of which 2/3 have to approve. You are right that our rights should be written in stone, but they are not. They change all the time depending on who is running the government. We have politicians trying to change our rights every day. The more conservative the control the more religious the impositions of law, the more liberal the control the higher the taxing of all. In some cases its a o win situation but it is still better than most any other government on this planet.
2006-07-11 07:36:49 · answer #4 · answered by Carlos C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course it is a living document, because things change. When it says that congress shall make no laws to restrict the right to bear arms, do you think that means that you can have a nuclear bomb? Do you think that the founding fathers wanted the government snooping into peoples bedrooms to control their sex lives? The constitution says that we have rights that are not listed in it, so the argument that if a right is not mentioned in the constitution, then we do not have that right is bogus. We all have the right to pursue our own happiness as long as we do not interfere with anyone else's rights. So what is wrong with the right for gays to marry? They are hurting no one, just exercising their rights like every one else.
2006-07-11 07:45:21 · answer #5 · answered by happytraveler 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is a living document in the sense that each generation will view it in a slightly different way. That's the beauty of the document. With each generation come new challenges that are not directly addressed in the Constitution. Thus, we must review the document for guidance in making laws. I agree with you to the extent that I get angry at people who think it should be changed to suit their fancy. But, I look at it as a living document in a different way.
2006-07-11 07:34:36 · answer #6 · answered by WBrian_28 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a living document. It has to be interpreted in the view of the mores of the current culture. Anything else would make it an anachronism. A case in point is the concept that blacks are only considered to be 3/5 of a person for voting purposes.
2006-07-11 09:22:27 · answer #7 · answered by ceprn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Constitution or any legal document that has been signed is 'set in stone'. Otherwise, why did you have to sign it or even write it down, for that matter?
The Constitution does provide a process for changing it. The Amendment process is purposefully difficult and slow.
2006-07-11 07:36:21 · answer #8 · answered by opusthepenguin_1999 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is living because it constantly is amended by one thing or another. The original constitution is in stone, as many a criminal can tell you. Our rights don't really change much from the standards set forth. Living just means it is constantly being added to or worked with, not that we are going to get screwed. Good question!!
2006-07-11 07:40:23 · answer #9 · answered by roritr2005 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep, the Founders gave it the ability to be amended. This means the Constitution is not a static document, nor was it ever. The ideals on which it was written and the principles within it though are a static.
2006-07-11 07:34:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is in the sense that it can be changed based on new information, social factors and other needs. That said, changing it is not something that should be taken lightly-- hence the arduous and lenghty process to change it.
The whole flag burning and marriage amendment stuff is nonsense. Those can all be addressed via laws either at federal level or at state level.
2006-07-11 07:37:51 · answer #11 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋