Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

dksuddeth · 04-11-2006, 09:10 AM

great article uber, and a great topic.

As far as Justice Scalia goes, I both respect some of his views but disagree with some of them as well when it concerns the constitution.

The constitution is NOT a living document, although it's been treated as one for half of its lifetime. Some people say that its interpretation needs to flow and adjust to the society of the day while others interpret it as the most basic of legal principle that neither needs to be changed, nor should it ever be changed.

If we take a look at the 'living document' theory, we get the hodgepodge mix of interpretations that we have today and the results that show for it are numerous instances where the government violates the constitution and breaks its own laws to enforce its own laws. The constitution then takes on different meanings everytime there is a new house/senate majority, new president, or new supreme court makeup. That much change will only result in disaster for the people of this country.

The 'legal document' standpoint stipulates that these are the laws of this land and are inviolate. The government is not allowed to subvert or sneak around 'loopholes' to obtain an objective, because the objective should always be to do the will of the people.

The last 70 years have seen huge leaps in the changing definitions of the constitutional laws because the power has been reversed. The government now controls the people and it uses the very 'living document' theory thats preached about.

04-11-2006, 09:10 AM	#2 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	great article uber, and a great topic. As far as Justice Scalia goes, I both respect some of his views but disagree with some of them as well when it concerns the constitution. The constitution is NOT a living document, although it's been treated as one for half of its lifetime. Some people say that its interpretation needs to flow and adjust to the society of the day while others interpret it as the most basic of legal principle that neither needs to be changed, nor should it ever be changed. If we take a look at the 'living document' theory, we get the hodgepodge mix of interpretations that we have today and the results that show for it are numerous instances where the government violates the constitution and breaks its own laws to enforce its own laws. The constitution then takes on different meanings everytime there is a new house/senate majority, new president, or new supreme court makeup. That much change will only result in disaster for the people of this country. The 'legal document' standpoint stipulates that these are the laws of this land and are inviolate. The government is not allowed to subvert or sneak around 'loopholes' to obtain an objective, because the objective should always be to do the will of the people. The last 70 years have seen huge leaps in the changing definitions of the constitutional laws because the power has been reversed. The government now controls the people and it uses the very 'living document' theory thats preached about. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."