Pros And Cons Of A Living Constitution

Following this further, the constitution is a living document, it never gets old. Some portions of the constitution are very specific about certain topics and vague about others. The fact that certain parts are vague makes the constitution a living document, it can adapt to changes. The goal was for the constitution to be able to stand generation after generation. When our founding fathers created the constitution they realized that any document meant to frame a government needed flexibility, in recognizing this they incorporated the elastic clause, the Amendment process and Judicial review and interpretation. The elastic clause, which is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18, states that congress may pass all laws necessary and proper. …show more content…
When the court makes a decision they are making an interpretation of what the constitution meant and said. For example the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott was a slave who went to court to ask for his freedom as he stated that his owner lived in a free state for four years. The supreme court ruled that Dred Scott was still a slave because he was not a citizen, he was declared property, therefore his case was invalid. The judges interpreted the constitution in what they believed it meant. The constitution doesn 't mention that “slaves are considered property” it was assumed. All of these portions of the constitution provide for flexibility and enable the constitution to truly be a “living document”. A flexible document grants more input from current generations and allows people to have an input on current ideas of how the country should be run. The adaptability of flexible constitutions makes them popular among the people. This is effective because the constitution can bend in the face of extreme crisis and circumstances without having to break laws or reformat the constitution. Adaptability is the constitution’s greatest