Is the Constitution ?

Question

A living breathing document ?
Or should it be interpreted in the times it was created ?
Or should we completly revamp the constitution and start anew ?

Opinions are welcome .

Answer 1

It should be interpreted in the times is was created. If we view it as a living thing, then the judicial branch becomes just as political as the other two branches (which has already happened to a large extent for this precise reason).

Answer 2

Given the actual shown reality that the conflict mongering Bush is and has been waging an unlawful conflict with none Constitutional assertion of conflict ALL depending UPON FILTHY STINKING LIES that has considered the slaughter of over 400,000 innocuous Iraqi civilians and now sees some sixty 8% of human beings annoying an end to this crime hostile to humanity and Bush giving WE,the human beings the FINGER, do you ideas telling us what the hell distinction postponing the structure would make somewhat for the reason that thus far the superb courtroom has ruled in 3 situations that Bush has certainly violated the structure. at the same time as will human beings comprehend that of each of the western democracies ,the U. S. Republican type of govenment is through far the least democratic and has the LEAST controls on the flexibility of it really is chief from no longer being waiting to elect their own chief contained in the first position to giving him a ludicrously un-democratic "veto power" that makes a mockery of the very essense of democracy and that is only about all guidelines. the completed failure of the U. S. Congress both now and contained in the previous to effect THE DEMOCRATIC WILL OF the human beings is often as a results of un-democratic veto power and and the both ludicrously un-democratic un-proportionately elected Senate . The grimy little secrete is that the Founding Fathers had little use for WE,the human beings and held them in contempt and through the completed structure made guidelines and guidelines to thwart the choose of WE the human beings and elements the flexibility to the elitist govt branch . No, the U. S. already has and has continually had an efficient dictatorship.

Answer 3

correct in first two assumptions but the third one, rather than revamp, i think amend is more appropriate.

it is a living, breathing document. its fundamentals are guidelines to shape up man's conviction to his statute as a citizen of a particular nation.

it should also be interpreted during the time it was created , thus the need for amendment. certain by-laws has some clauses for loopholes, giving reason for some to use it as an excuse in breaking the law and rights of men.

to completely revamp would create a void by which men would have the opportunity to break laws while still in the process of creating a new constitution.

this question of yours is applicable to all nationalities. so do forgive my giving of views despite the fact we're definitely different in nationality.

Answer 4

It was written as a living, breathing document that was supposed to grow and evolve with the times. That is why most of the document doesn't speak directly to issues they meant to address, and just generally mentions things. (The separation of church and state, as opposed to stating that no one can tell others how to live their religious lives and follow what beliefs in accordance to what the government tells you to.)

I don't think you can throw out the constitution, for that is what our laws are based on, as well as our government. Throwing it out means starting from scratch. So who gets to say what is what? It would be total anarchy.

And taking it for the time it was written? I think that the African Americans might have some major objections, for slavery was legal at the time. I think that the Constitution has been kept "up to date" on the needed items (women's voting, equal rights for all in voting, etc.). Why mess with it? Because I don't know about you, but there has been many times that it has protected the rights of others, including myself. Only a person that doesn't like the rights it protects would want to scrap it and start anew.

Answer 5

It should be interpreted in the times it was created. Of course some have already tried to change it and I'm sure some would also like to see it gone. It is what this Country is about and it shouldn't change. Unfortunately some have already misinterpreted it to their own beliefs or agendas.

Answer 6

Ah, the question of questions...

I think it IS a "living document" because it allows successive generations to amend it... the basics are quite sound... some issues are difficult as we start to interpret them to today's technologies... and the writers "intent"

Answer 7

The Constitution is not being adhered to (and won't be for the future, either), because THIS secret and evil group has been in control of everything way too long!...
http://www.rense.com/general58/suspre.htm

Answer 8

Well the French like to monkey with their constitution all the time...I guess enough said about that....

Answer 9

I've got a few "opinions" already printed here in Y!A.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsNtGTxEGwCBr3.CnZkmo7_sy6IX?qid=20060908175423AAliALu

This one was just earlier today. Look at the last answer on this question.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Al0ch_o8BDA6g7caqTjQHKzsy6IX?qid=20060926155943AA5Kad5

And here is the only question I've asked (so far).

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApjrG1Leq2EDJnA3TjFYCvnsy6IX?qid=20060922074009AAB54Qd

And one of my favorite quotations

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApuECI7Thgl4F7C07FJ.0W7sy6IX?qid=20060801203556AAOxmz4

Answer 10

start your own country,, bye bye