Why do SOME liberals want the constitution to be considered a living document?

Question

By JONATHAN EWING, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 55 minutes ago

PONCE, Puerto Rico - People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots,"
U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia says.


In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution "as it was originally written and intended."

"Scalia does have a philosophy, it's called originalism," he said. "That's what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do," he told more than 100 politicians and lawyers from this U.S. island territory.

According to his judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.

Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."

"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break."

"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court."

"They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said.

Scalia was invited to Puerto Rico by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. The organization was founded in 1982 as a debating society by students who believed professors at the top law schools were too liberal. Conservatives and libertarians mainly make up the 35,000 members.

Joe M how about answer the question?

Answer 1

Without the liberal rulings of Supreme Courts none of the so called advancements of the progressives would have been made into law.

This last week the court ruled by five to four that CO2 was a pollutant. Meaning that humans who exhale CO2 which is naturally turn into oxygen by trees and plants is now considered a pollutant.

When will the court regain its sanity.

Answer 2

The founders of this great nation were quite ingenus. The Constitution is very specific and written in normal language rather than "legalese". It says what it means and it means what it says without the need for a lot of interpretation.

But they also left room to address a changing society. The process of amending the Constitution is precisly for this purpose. Granted, amending the Constitution is not easy. It requires a lot of work. I also, requires the cooperation and support of a vast majority of the States. This was done to make absolutely it is a true majority that desires such a change.

The issue of Abortion did not resonate with a majority of the States. So, the liberals created a phony lawsuit and forced the issue to the then liberal Supreme Court to shove it down everyone's throat. It was bad law and for that reason it should be repealed and the decision sent back to the states. If the pro-abortion people are so sure that they represent the will of the people they should have no problem amending the Constitution to make it so.

The same for the homosexual agenda. If you want to create specific rights for homosexuals and that is what America wants, amend the Constitution. But the only time liberals truly did attempt to amend the Constitution was with the Equal Rights Amendment. Something they sought to provide special rights for women. It did not succeed because most people think that women are already granted equal rights by the Constitution and that to pass such an amendment would say that the Constitution does not. What would happen if it were repealed in the future? Would people be able to say that the rest of the Constituttion no longer applies to women?
The American people are smart and can decide for themselves without judges.

.

Answer 3

Justice Scallia argument - "the Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break" is a red herring.
This is not the stance of liberals who believe in the "Living Document" theory of the constitution.
If the constitution were not subject to interpretation, slavery, women's suffrage, & legal discrimination would be the norm. These ideals are prohibited in amendments XII, XIX, XV, & XXIV.
But other interpretations are not enshrined in amendments, such as cruel and unusual punishment.
It was common place, when the constitution was written, that flogging was an accepted punishment for relatively minor crimes.
It has come to pass that this form of corporal punishment is no longer accepted by the population of the US.
So gradually it has been done away with, so the interpretation of the constitution has changed, without an amendment, a new interpretation has been applied.
And as society changes so will the constitution.
On a personal note, if Justice Scallia feels that he is not able to interpret and resolve conflicts arising from disputes held within the laws and constitution of this country, maybe he is unfit to be a justice of the supreme court, the final authority on these interpretation.

Answer 4

I think the problem is that more and more, liberal politicians see the appointment of liberal justices as a means to accomplish achieving their agendas without the necessity of getting laws through congress or ammending the constitution.

When this type of legislation from the bench occurs (and it is occuring now) the constitution comes to mean whatever the court says it means and that is determined by the make up of the courts members, whether liberal or conservative.

Thus the furor over supreme court appointments in recent years.

The questions of homosexuality and abortion are both very hot emotional issues on both sides.

However, neither the legislative nor the ammendment process has been followed to determine the will of the people in these regards.

Supreme court ruling are being forced to bypass what our founding fathers saw as the only proper way to amend or change our consitution. From what I have read of the document (which is very very clear) and the Federalist Papers, the founding fathers wanted it to be very difficult indeed to change the original document.

The trend to use the courts to "interpret" what it means is a side step in the constitutional process.

Answer 5

Hi. I think and feel that the Constitution is embedded with a spirit of freedom and justice. So much so, that it would seem to some to have a life of its own.
You are correct, though. It is merely a document. But it is also the word of some great Americans whose geniuses live on through history in the form of one of the greatest collections of words ever.
A school can also be too conservative. To not allow the liberal points of view or the consevative points of view is to block free thought. You've made some excellent points concerning the constitution. Now enjoy the debate.
Our nation isn't a one party system.

Answer 6

“ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
-Declaration of Independence

Jefferson's dedication to "consent of the governed" was so thorough that he believed that individuals could not be morally bound by the actions of preceding generations


Article VII
The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same

The authors of the Constitution were clearly aware that changes would be necessary from time to time if the Constitution was to endure and cope with the effects of the anticipated growth of the nation. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. Balancing this, they also wanted to ensure that an overly rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. Their solution was to devise a dual process by which the Constitution could be altered

Answer 7

The original constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war. It also gives Congress the power to set rules for the management of the military.

The original constitution says that people shall be free from search without probable cause describing specific places and things to be searched.

The original constitution says that people shall be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and shall always have the right to a prompt jury trial.

The original constitution specifically enumerates the power of the federal government, and leaves most things (including education, marriage, sex, and of course the details of health care decisions made by people and their doctors) in the hands of the states and the people.

See, I don't think you really care about the "original" constitution. I think you're just like those bible "literalists" - you just like to take literally the parts which suit your position - the rest are disposable.

Answer 8

I don't think it's just "liberals", but a large proportion of those of us who study law and politics in general. There's just no reason to consider the constitution as existing only in a time-slice a few hundred years ago when we're applying it today. No reason at all, really.
Many of us (I'm further right than left) feel like the *only* appropriate application of our constitution is as a living document thats application changes over time.
The Marbury v. Madison case established judicial review, which set up our standard practices for dealing with constiutional issues as they evolve over time.
To dispute the constitution as living document would be to dispute cases we rely on to guide us - and have relied on for 204 years.

Answer 9

The constitution is really the philosophy our country must adhere to. Any changing of the constitution is done to benefit whoever is doing the rewriting in the name of "progression". I trust our founding fathers a lot more then I trust our government now. Don't throw aside the greatest document in history.

Answer 10

I find it telling that Scalia uses the two examples of "abortion" and 'homosexual activity' in his speech. It's so obvious that religious fundies are frothing at the mouth to change the constitution regarding these two things. Get over it. You'll never control peoples' love lives or womens' bodies.