|
uh, not exactly, Ratbastid. There is a reason it was written, because words have meaning. Otherwise why bother writing them down? I agree that the Constitution was written flexibly, but that does not mean that the meaning of a word changes over time. You can't say that the Constitution says "Pres must be 35" but today it means "states can't secede." That's an extreme case, but my point is this: there is a different between flexibility and evolution. The Founding Fathers (and yes, they were men) wrote the Constitution as they did in order to make sure that the govt could never do to the citizens what King George did to the colonies - they were very clear about that, and meant it not to change over time. That doesn't mean "impair the obligations of contract" or "privileges or immunities" or "due process" aren't flexible concepts - they are - but their meaning doesn't change, only their application does. The priviliges or immunities clause doesn't evolve into something else, it still has to pertain to privileges and immunities. I think you're setting up a strawman here.
|