Is the US constitution called a living document?

Answer 1

It should be because certain people - liberals, often - don't like following the rules set down in the constitution by its writers.

In plain fact, the Constitution is anything BUT a living, changeable document! The mess our government is in today is a result of twisting and bending the meaning of rules set down in the Constitution, among which are the unlawful 'separation of church and state' doctrine, and the states' rights nature of the Constitution, which the Federal Government has trampled so far into the ground that it is no longer visible.

Answer 2

First, it is very important to understand that the US Constitution is only sometimes called a "living, breathing document."

There's a deep controversy among historians, court justices, legal scholars, and especially politicians over this description of the Constitution. A number of important figures, including Supreme Court Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., believed that the Constitution should be interpreted flexibly and in the context of current societal norms as opposed to strictly in its 18th century context. He pointed out that strict observance would require legalizing conventions that present-day citizens consider morally wrong - like slavery, for example. To his way of thinking, it is perfectly proper for the courts to shape America's understanding of what the rules in the Constitution mean, and to change that meaning as new situations arise. Those who agree with him view the Constitution as a set of "negative powers" that the government doesn't have; they consider that to be unnecessarily binding and frustrating to the progress of society.

However, a great number of people believe that limiting the power of government is exactly what the Constitution was intended to do, and rightly so. They see the ever-broadening free interpretation of that document as a means of undermining and skirting around it while simultaneously allowing two branches of the government - the Executive and the Judicial - to establish legal precedents at the expense of the third - the Legislative. These precedents, then, are used to justify patterns of governance that slowly erode the very foundation of the American system. When James Madison wrote the Constitution, he was extremely careful to add multiple checks and balances. For every power given the President, another was given to Congress or the Supreme Court to block its implementation.

Those who believe the Constitution's great strength is this very limitation of power argue that it needs no "interpretation." The means to amend it legally is included in the system already, and anyone who wants to change it should follow that procedure. The danger of allowing the Courts to determine what the Constitution means is simply this: the Courts are not accountable to the people. Justices are not elected and cannot be replaced with candidates who will quickly revoke or override the Supreme Court's "bad calls." The danger of concentrating power in the Executive branch is a President who enforces laws selectively and in such a way as to intimidate opposition and avoid the negative consequences provided in the Constitution. Another danger exists in that such a President could decide to substitute "policy" and "regulation" for "legislation" and then punish anyone who speaks out against him or her.

This question comes at a unique moment in American history, when the validity of the Constitution is being debated as never before. You are urged to keep watch on current events in Washington, DC to see how it's playing out right before our eyes.

Answer 3

yes because it can always be changed-ammendmants

Answer 4

Yes. This is because the document can be reinterpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and amended (changed) by Congress with the approval of 3/4 of the several states.