Try to prove to me that the constitution isn't a living document that is meant to be changed over time
>>70359233
It is being changed. That's what amendments are for.
>>70359233
>living document
how is this not a form of psychosis?
>>70359233
I can see things being added on rare occasions, but removal of a few things like the 1,2 would invalidate our Republics right to exist.
>>70359233
define living document
>shall not be infringed
not
>shall be infringed after n amount of years
that was easy
OP it does get changed. Remember how the republicucks banned slavery? Unfortunately for you I'm stocking up on guns and ammo
>>70359233
It is meant to be changed, that is why there is an amendment process. You just have to explain exactly what you want, put it in a form that can be easily read in a few minutes (size of an amendment), go through a process that gives everyone plenty of time to read it and think about it, and then get most people to agree.
All of which are things that liberals will never be able to do with their true agenda.
>>70359233
You're the one trying to change the constitution into something you can kill.
Fuck you.
>>70359233
STFU Ted! You can't be a United States President.
>>70359233
It's been changed overtime you dumbfuck
>>70359233
If it were meant to be reinterpreted on the fly, then it would never have been written down in the first place. If it were meant to be easily changed based on interpretation, it wouldn't have had a process for amendments build in.
No, you need to prove this was the intention.
Huezinho here.
In Civil Law, the judiciary is not supposed to make laws, but just interpret it. The ones that create or change laws are in the Congress.
But don't you guys have Common law? Where the judges actively create laws?
>>70359561
>yfw you realize those things weren't in the original Constitution, and were added as Amendments to appease the Anti-Federalists like Jefferson
ARTICLE FIVE
AMEND THE CONSTITUTION FOR CHANGE
>>70359327
daily reminder that living document is basically a CURRENT YEAR legal argument
>"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa," says Ginsburg, whom President Clinton nominated to the court in 1993. "That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. … It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/ginsburg-likes-s-africa-as-model-for-egypt/
>>70359233
it is meant to be changed. its called article V... read it. thats how you change it. but courts cannot interpret the constitution. it says what it says. they only interpret the constitutionality of new laws... no the document itself. Courts do not make law
>>70360830
>But don't you guys have Common law? Where the judges actively create laws?
Sort of. The American Constitution sets the boundaries for American Common Law to grow. Common Law as practice in Britain and her Commonwealth has more leeway since the ultimate power and legitimacy is with the parliament rather than a constitution that whose legitimacy is based on the people.
>>70361148
The argument of Federalists was they were not need as the Government had no power to do them in the first place
>>70359233
The constitution acts as a one way handicap on conservatives. The left ignores it. We need a conservative fascist to restore order
>>70361148
>yfw the original Constitution would've destroyed before it even began
>yfw America has the longest living Constitution on earth
>yfw when dumbasses still want to change it
>>70361267
>>70360955
>>70360465
This
The Constiuion is a contract with the people
The Supreme Court is not infallible
One day they will go to far and cause a revolution
>>70359233
that opens the possibility to "interpret" it to mean nearly anything
then whats the point of it?
>>70359233
It can be changed. That doesn't necessarily mean it SHOULD be changed, but it can. You simply need a decision that gets two-thirds approval by both the house and the senate, and it needs three-quarters approval by all of the states in order to become a constitutional amendment.
If that can't be achieved, then it is not the will of the American people.
>>70360077
Check'd and kek'd
