Do you believe the Constitution is a living breathing document?

Question

Do you think the founding fathers intended it to change with society?

Answer 1

Yes and no.

The yes has two parts. First, as noted above, the framers expected it to be amended to adjust to changing conditions. As shown by the Eleventh and Twelfth Amendments, the founding fathers were quite willing to amend the Constitution when flaws in the original plan were revealed or conditions changed.

Second, I believe that they understood that there would be changes that would require judges and legislators to decide how the old rules fit new circumstances. For example, to use a case from several years ago, how do you apply the Fourth Amendment rule against unreasonable searches and seizures to high tech devices like infrared surveillance and heat detectors. That requires considering whether the new methods of observation are sufficiently like old-fashioned searches (By the way, Justice Scalia was part of the majority which held that such high tech surveillance was a search). I do not think the framers saw the general terms of the Amendments as enacting specific rules locked in stone. A similar reasoning was used by Chief Justice John Marshall back in the early 1800s to approve the First Bank of the United States.

The no part is that I do not think the Framers expected judges and legislators to ignore or re-write the basic concepts underlying the text. You can't make a horse into a person for Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence regardless of what a judge believes about specieism. Of course, some provisions do ask the judges to make value judgments (e.g. the cruel and unusual punishments clause, the reasonable search and seizure clause). Such clauses do invite a consideration of general standards but only to a very limited extent based on the principles intended by the framers.

Answer 2

It is a framework for our system of government and laws, not the law itself. It was intended to be changed and the processes for changing it are built in.

But what is not actually built in is concept of judicial review to interpret the law within the framework of the constitution. That emerged early in the Courts history as cases came before it. So if Scalia had his way, he would be deciding cases only on what the law said, not what the constitution says.

Oh, and by the way for strontium above going on about 'inalienable rights'. They are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. But they are not in the constitution, the are outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Don't you just love it when people who flunked civics class speak up so loudly about civics?

Answer 3

If it weren't meant to be a living record, then the framers does not have allowed for an substitute technique. it somewhat is that easy. it would % CPR regardless of the indisputable fact that. ==Edit== I might desire to make some comments on some solutions right here. Eukodol's factors are actually not good. Judicial interpretation replaced into explicitly allowed for interior the form - it particularly is why we've an tremendously ultimate court docket. And his element approximately Bush isn't valid because of the fact the President might in undemanding terms execute regulation in accordance with constitutional amendments or judicial interpretation of it, not with the aid of his very own decree. interior the absence of judicial or congressional education he might interpret, yet not in in any different case. And da3rdxsacharm, the form replaced into not made somewhat difficult to alter. 2/3s of the states in 1790 replaced into in undemanding terms 9 states. not consumer-friendly, yet not precisely as demanding as getting 34 states at present to agree on something. in the event that they wanted it somewhat demanding to alter, they might have made it a three/4 requirement or greater.

Answer 4

Yes. The Constitution is a document that is supposed to change with the times (empowerment of Women and Minorities, Lowering the voting age to 18) as long as we stick with its principles.

Although it is been threatened several times over the years, it is worth our time to remember the struggle it took to get it made in the first place and the country that was founded upon it.

Answer 5

I don't know about breathing but living yes,

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
James Madison

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
James Madison

Answer 6

Well.... only if you consider that's what amendments are for... a document that can mean anything... means nothing at all... Judges that modify the meaning of the Constitution are the most vile kind of scum.... Laws and policy are for the legislature and the executive....... the *only* thing that *UNELECTED* judges are supposed to do is rule if they conform to the constitution *as it was written* or not..... even if the way it was written was wrong or immoral... It is not the job of the Judge to make law or policy!

Answer 7

NO!!!!

"Inalienable rights" is just what it means . . . permanent, unchanging, eternal.

It's interesting that people claim Bush is ignoring the Constitution, but can't think of one single right they've personally forfeited since 911. Yet they casually forget Janet "Darth Vader" Reno under Clinton, and episodes like the Branch Davidians, Elian Gonzales, and the "national I.D. card" proposed by the Democrats in the '90's. It was the Liberals that invented "political correctness" (i.e. limits to free speech) in the first place. Utter hypocrisy.

Answer 8

The writers of the constitution expected society to amend the constitution as and when it needed it. They did not expect the constitution to change by itself.

Answer 9

No, it's paper. And yes, the founding fathers more than likely expected it to change with society therefore the ammendments.

Answer 10

yes I think they knew it would change but not the way it has. when you get liberals involved things have a way of gettig twisted out of shape for their benifit not the general publics. as a result we are being taxed to and after death so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.maybe someday people will wake up and get rid of those who are in just for the money and prestrige