Is our Constitution a living document?

Is our Constitution a living document that can change over time?
By Will Armstrong


The term "living document" refers to the idea that the constitution should be interpreted to accommodation the changing times. Some say that the framers left the language of the Constitution vague so that it could change over time to stay relevant with changing conditions; they contend that the document was not supposed to be taken literally but interpreted according to its broad meaning or the spirit of it. The Constitution already has a provision for change, in the Amendment process.

The problem with viewing the Constitution this way is that you can in effect make the Constitution say what you want it to say. The problems with this view are many and it dangerously threatens our democracy. The constitution isn't just a theoretical expose but the law of our land; our elected official swears an oath to it. If the meaning of the Constitution blows with the wind what are these people swearing allegiance to.

My experience with the truth on debatable issues is that it’s usually simpler than people like to admit. I’ll admit that this issue seems pretty cut and dry to me, according to the research I’ve done. In looking at the arguments in favor of a living document I’ve noticed some self-contradictions. For instance they will complain about how the original meaning of the constitution can’t be applied to many of the current issues but at the same time claim that they are originalists or that we can’t know what the original framers but later on claim they understand the spirit of the document.

Clarence Thomas said it best when he said, “there are only two ways to interpret the Constitution – try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up” and “unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores”.

The president swears an oath to preserve the Constitution, but if it meaning is in constant change what are you preserving? Why would the founders want to write a legally binding document in unclear terms, isn’t it intended to be clearly understood by as many as possible. Federal employees and judges, members of the armed forces, congress, civil servants all to an oath to support, defend and uphold to Constitution. Doesn’t it make sense that it’s meaning should be as clear and specific as possible? The online google dictionary defines Constitution as the fundamental law of the land, a legal document describing a formal system. The definition of constitution itself refutes the idea that it’s a living document.

In conclusion it seems that the unclear and inconsistent reasoning, proponents of a living Constitution seem to have, points to an agenda and rationalization behind their opinions. Where as those opposed have a more consistent and sound rationale. The idea of a living document that changes over time reminds me of the secular idea of moral relatism, which can be changed at a whim. Either way there is no foundation.

References:

Theories of Constitutional interpretation Retrieved January 11, 2010 http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html

Wikipedia (2009). Living Constitution Retrieved January 11, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

Wikipedia (2009). Oath of office Retrieved January 11, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#Military_Oaths_-_Federal_and_State