How does one argue with this?

[righteousbarbarian]

What do you think about the following statement and how would one go about arguing against it?

The Constitution is difficult to interpret literally. Even Presidents that have tried, like Jefferson, ended up expanding the Constitution. It's so difficult because the Constitution is the product of compromise and contains areas that were left fuzzy on purpose, in hopes that they would work themselves out. Founding Fathers who supported one clause of the Constitution didn't support it the next day, depending on the political climate. Madison agreed to a Bill of Rights only to get the small states to ratify the Constitution. After the Bill of Rights was worked out, the small states who pressed for it turned against it in hopes of eroding support for the Constitution.

In other words, the Constitution is a living document meant to accomodate a great and expanding country. In my mind, a strict construction of the Constitution is untenable. For one person to say that they want to return to the Constitution only means they wish to interpret the Constitution in a way that comports with their ideologies that have little to do with concerns of government or law. I know Ron Paul is at least talking about the Constitution but that doesn't put me at ease.

thanks.

[LibertyOptics]

The Constitution is no more of a "living" document any more than the Ten Commandments are. By definition, they are the core, fundamental, "organic" priniciples by which we are governed. They are the foundation and backbone of which are rules. laws, regs and codes are suposed to derive (these could be defined as "living"). You modify the Constitution, you change our nation.

I don't think the Constitution is all that hard to interpret. I think what it actually says is difficult for little minds to get wrapped around.

Nevertheless, if you really want to rock your world, read Hologram of Liberty by Boston T. Party (check amazon.com for background).

Scott

[Yellowfin]

The entire dilemma is resolving the difference between the "necessary and proper" and commerce clauses versus the 9th and 10th Amendments, the former of which need to have extremely narrow application and the latter be regarded as LAW WHICH THEY ARE. The last 90 years have completely thrown out the 9th and 10th and that needs to be completely reversed. Pave the roads, keep out the foreign enemies and get rid of the domestic ones--many of whom are elected, print a currency backed with gold, and MAYBE keep the air clean but otherwise leave me the **** alone and don't tell me what to do. Simple enough?

[LittleRedToyota]

while there are a few portions of the consitution which are vague, most of it is actually quite clear. in general, you need the reading comprehension skills of about an 8th grader to understand what it says.

usually, the people who want to call it a "living document" are those who do not like what is says. it isn't that it is vague, but rather that it clearly says something they don't want it to say or does not say something they do want it to say.

this has to be addressed on a specific point basis, though. don't let them get away with saying "the consitution is vague"...make them point out exactly what clause they think is vague. then dissect that particular clause.

the constitution actually is a "living document", but that just means it can be amended...it doesn't mean it doesn't say what it says.

ETA:

the commerce clause is a great example.

it it actually very clear...and very narrow. it says:

"The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

the only real "vagueness" here is what exactly constitutes "commerce". we tend to think of commerce in terms of buying and selling things. the term "commerce" used to be more expansive, though, and included other instances of one party interacting with another party.

however, the "among the several states" part is quite clear.

anything that happens entirely within one state is clearly not covered by the commerce clause. to try to "interpret" it in any other way is intellectually dishonest.

it does not say anything about "matters effecting interstate commerce"...it says actual commerce. so, the modern intreptation that applies to commerce clause to activities that occur entirely within one state because they "effect interstate commerce" is intellectually dishonest BS.

and you really do only need the reading comprehension skills of an 8th grader to understand that.