It means that judges can interpret the constitution in any way they want. No matter what the document actually says. It is the ultimate height of intellectual dishonesty ever seen.
2007-03-12 07:36:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
It's one of the theories of constitutional interpretation.
The idea is that the text of the constitution provides a framework, but we should interpret that text in a modern context. The opposite believe is that we should only interpret the constitution to mean what the Founders intended it to mean 230 years ago.
The "living document" theory is the reason 4th Amendment protections also apply to telephones and cars, and 1st Amendment protections also apply to the internet. These concepts did not exist 230 years ago. So, if we go strictly by the "original intent", those areas are outside constitutional protection.
2007-03-12 07:35:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
It is the belief that the Constitution can be re-interpreted to mean something other than what the people who wrote it decided it should mean.
It is the belief that the very specific powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution can be re-interpreted more broadly, despite the myriad writings by those who wrote it as to what exactly each term and clause meant.
It is the belief that the Constitution isn't a contract that creates the Federal government and gives it power; that power being ceded by the states and the people, and only those powers listed.
It is the belief that the 10th Amendment is incorrect, and that government has the right to assume powers not given it in the Constitution.
It is a belief that is dangerous to our rights and freedoms.
2007-03-12 07:41:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
There are two schools of thought about the US constitution; one says that it should be read in the strict terms in which it was written, and the other - which is where your quote originates - says that legislators should pay more attention to the spirit of the constitution, thereby recognising that the founding fathers couldn't anticipate every development that would follow.
I hope that helps.
2007-03-12 07:41:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by mrsgavanrossem 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It means the Constitution is not written in stone. It means the Constitution is open to change, interruptions, amendments, it means it is growing and changing the same way our is growing and changing.
2007-03-12 07:43:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by firewomen 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is a clever termed coined by the left that is supposed to sound all warm and fuzzy. Gee isnt it great, the constitution LOVES us.
No american wants the consitution to be flexible and maleable. It must remain constant.
A wall cannot defendeth if it bendeth.
The Constitution is a rock. Liberals are chisels and chislers.
Defend it by voting them all out.
2007-03-12 07:41:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by kent j 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
It means that it continues to be open to interpretation.
It is also open to if people figure out a way to interpret it that actually undermines it.
The basic rights gauranteed within are constantly argued, usually by people with an agenda, but it has stood the test of time (at least so far).
2007-03-12 07:36:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by joemammysbigguns 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
That it changes with the society and it is also so cherished like a corp. to some people it consider as a person.
2007-03-12 07:36:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋