Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I have to disagree with the "living document" interpretation, though. The farther we get from 1789, the farther that the Constitution has to stretch to cover the issues of the day. Obviously it's not a real "living" document, although Scalia's remarks seem directed at that idea. Rather, the framework constructed by it is flexible enough to allow for the necessities of the day. It is by no means a perfect document, but unless we are ready to scrap it and revise it to include issues like fully automatic weapons, abortion, undelcared wars and foreign and domestic terrorism, we have to make what we have work.

The "hodgepodge mix of interpretations" that my esteemd collegue dksuddeth mentioned is the natural order of progression that the framers intended. The very nature of the American people has changed in the last 217 years. We're no longer a nation of "gentlemen farmers", and I know that the vast majority of my ancestors weren't here when the Constitution was ratified. The vast majority of Americans agree that their daily rights have remained sacrosanct their entire lives, and I don't see any examples to the contrary.