The United States is a land of arguments, by nature. Thankfully serious legal arguments can be settled through the judicial system if necessary, as the United States is also a land governed by law. However, interesting situations arise when the law itself is the subject of the argument. Even more interesting situations arise when the Constitution, the supreme law, is the cause for debate.
The situation in question is the status of the Constitution 's life, or lack thereof. Is it a living document, or is it dead? That is, should it be interpreted differently, according to the times, or interpreted precisely as it was intended to be when written? This question is hotly debated throughout politics, as its answer can determine how crucial legal …show more content…
The Constitution is excellently crafted, but excellent is certainly not equal to perfect. Of course, the Constitution has already been amended multiple times and will almost certainly receive more amendments in the future. But the living Constitution argument holds that these amendments are simply not always enough to solve problems with the document. If the Constitution were indeed flawless, it would require no reinterpretation, no amendments, no argument over its meaning. It would also probably be highly controversial in modern society because it would thus have to be God-given, as that is the only way something can truly be perfect.
Let us now consider the other side of the coin, the argument in favor of a dead
Constitution. In 2008; Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said at the Manhattan Institute,
"Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of
The situation in question is the status of the Constitution 's life, or lack thereof. Is it a living document, or is it dead? That is, should it be interpreted differently, according to the times, or interpreted precisely as it was intended to be when written? This question is hotly debated throughout politics, as its answer can determine how crucial legal …show more content…
The Constitution is excellently crafted, but excellent is certainly not equal to perfect. Of course, the Constitution has already been amended multiple times and will almost certainly receive more amendments in the future. But the living Constitution argument holds that these amendments are simply not always enough to solve problems with the document. If the Constitution were indeed flawless, it would require no reinterpretation, no amendments, no argument over its meaning. It would also probably be highly controversial in modern society because it would thus have to be God-given, as that is the only way something can truly be perfect.
Let us now consider the other side of the coin, the argument in favor of a dead
Constitution. In 2008; Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said at the Manhattan Institute,
"Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of