2007-09-23 05:59:21 · 12 answers · asked by Katherine R 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
they mean, "it evolves"
black people are no longer just 3/5 humans
and it is not only the landowning white males
who may vote, as intended by the forefarters so
transfiguringly praised by sexist and racist r.paul.
2007-09-23 06:12:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 13⤊ 0⤋
They mean that it is not a hard rigid document. That it can be reinterpreted all the time to fit the time period that we are in. That no mater how old it is it is still relevent, the wording just need to be interpreted a little different. The opposite is saying that it says what it says and that's it. For example, the 2nd amendment. Living doc people say that it no longer appiles because there is no militia. However, the other side says that we are allowed to have guns because the 2nd amendement says so, militia or no.
2007-09-23 13:06:05 · answer #2 · answered by Scott B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That it must be interpreted and applied in light of modern beliefs and modern practices, and not solely based on what was the practice and belief 230+ years ago.
For example -- under the 1st and 4th Amendments -- how should email and websites be treated? Are they "papers" or "the press", and thus protected? Or should be afford them no protection whatsoever because the Founders never conceived of them, and thus never intended them to be protected.
Another example -- due process protects "fundamental rights". Should those rights be interpreted and listed based solely on what existed 230 years ago? Or should they include things that we consider important to personal liberty now?
Case in point -- the right to refuse medical attention, including do-not-ressusciate orders and similar means. These medical technologies did not exist 230 years ago. But does that make the right to choose whether to live or die any less fundamental?
A "living document" interpretation says that the text must apply to the world we live in now -- and that while the original intent may be relevant, it cannot be the only thing to consider.
2007-09-23 13:04:28 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It's there way of saying that they can interpret and change the meaning of it's language anytime they want to suit there political needs and desires.
2007-09-23 13:03:54 · answer #4 · answered by Sloan R 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
That it changes with time while the core idea is still the same.
2007-09-23 13:03:31 · answer #5 · answered by Fedup Veteran 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
You have to practice and actively carry it out.
2007-09-23 13:03:41 · answer #6 · answered by bobanalyst 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It has the ability to grow
2007-09-23 13:04:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
it can be amended to still be relevant to today's generation
2007-09-23 13:05:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the spirit lives, not the corpse.
2007-09-23 13:16:32 · answer #9 · answered by toranalee 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
It can be amended, for one.
2007-09-23 13:07:38 · answer #10 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋