Do you think the founding fathers intended it to change with society?
2007-08-01 07:04:37 · 12 answers · asked by Jasmine 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Lick My Nose: I'm guessing you're a troll but this really is a complex question. Sorry you don't understand that. To everyone else thanks. I loved reading ur answers. I asked this same question last night and got great answers too. Some see it as a Yes and No answer.
2007-08-01 07:22:20 · update #1
Eukodol: Excellent Points!
2007-08-01 07:25:23 · update #2
No. Do you have a "Living, Breathing Deed to Your House"? How about a "Living, Breathing Birth Certificate"? The Constitution was meant to be as solid as a rock, a protection against tyranny and those who seek to "reinterpret" it according to "the times we live in". The Framers purposely included a provision to allow amendments to the Constitution so that it could be changed by the people, and not "revised" by judges.
And those who insist the Constitution is a "Living, Breathing Document" to be interpreted according to the times we live in have no right to complain about Bush doing exactly that.
2007-08-01 07:21:03 · answer #1 · answered by Eukodol 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If it were not intended to be a living document, then the framers would not have allowed for an amendment process. It's that simple.
It might need CPR though.
==Edit==
I have to make a few comments on some answers here. Eukodol's points are not very good. Judicial interpretation was explicitly allowed for in the constitution - that's why we have a supreme court. And his point about Bush isn't valid because the President may only execute law in accordance with constitutional amendments or judicial interpretation of it, not by his own decree. In the absence of judicial or congressional guidance he may interpret, but not in otherwise.
And da3rdxsacharm, the constitution was not made extremely difficult to change. 2/3s of the states in 1790 was only 9 states. Not easy, but not exactly as hard as getting 34 states today to agree on anything. If they wanted it extremely hard to change, they would have made it a 3/4 requirement or higher.
2007-08-01 14:12:20 · answer #2 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. In fact the founding fathers intended for the Constitution to be very difficult to change. This is evidenced by the extraordinary means necessary to make an amendment to the Constitution: 2/3 vote of each house and ratification by 2/3 of the states.
2007-08-01 14:13:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think we may add to it (amendments), but the founding principles of it are meant to be left unchanged. If it was meant to be altered than what would the point of it be?
Technologies & beliefs may change, but basic rights & freedoms do not. It was written to protect those, which was the point of new independent nation, if we start to pull on those threads than the whole thing will eventually become unraveled.
2007-08-01 14:18:20 · answer #4 · answered by Diamond24 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Not so much "living and breathing" as something that MUST change and adapt to fit the changes in the country.
If you take a strict constructionalist (or originalist) view, then 4th Amendment search protections would never apply to cars or emails -- because those aren't mentioned in the text.
1st Amendment freedom of speech would not apply to the internet -- because that isn't mentioned in the text.
Slavery should still be legal -- because it was specifically allowed in the original document.
Discrimination based on national origin or gender should still be allowed, because those aren't mentioned in the original document.
We live in a vastly different world than existed 230 years ago -- so, either we apply some "reasonable intent" model to figure out how to adapt specific provisions to those changes, or we deny any applications that did not exist 230 years ago, and thus condemn technology to being solely govt controlled becuase no rights apply when using that technology.
2007-08-01 14:07:42 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Well, if you read the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, there is very little in the way of explicit explanation of what the framers meant. They did not define what an establishment of religion would be, what expression is, what types of punishment qualify as cruel and unusual. One would have to imagine that if they wanted these terms to only mean what they meant in the 18th Century, they would have said exactly what they wanted them to mean. Rather, they gave us guidelines that were able to grow with the nation, and mature over time. Where they needed specificity, they included it. Where they wanted aspects to be able to adapt, they left them open to interpretation.
2007-08-01 14:15:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, but it is barely breathing today. We are now trying to recusitate it, but Bush keeps trying to murder it. And, the Dems are too spineless to do anything about it. If it were breathing then that would mean that it would have to bend and flow with the times that we live in with the extending freedom of speech on the internet and all.
2007-08-01 14:09:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Not really. Too many differing interpretations can take place and at the whim of the SCOTUS.
It's a pretty good document the way it is.
2007-08-01 14:12:15 · answer #8 · answered by Mark A 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If it wasn't intended to change, there wouldn't have been a process for amending it.
2007-08-01 14:09:07 · answer #9 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think they intended society to live up to it.
2007-08-01 14:08:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋