There, I fixed it!

[lucusloc]

I get the entirety of what you're saying, but from the get-go, the Constitution is not a "living document" by the current use of the term. The Constitution having the ability to be amended does NOT make it a living document, according to the standard use of the phrase. The Framers were quite specific that to amend the Constitution, a Constitutional Convention must be called, and the proposed amendment must be ratified within a certain amount of time, and by not less than 3/4 of the several States. The Leftists' idea of a "living document" is not consistent with the Framers' written intentions. The Leftists feel that the Constitution can be changed by passing a law(s) in Congress, by changing the definition of words, or even by a decision of the SCOTUS (see Roe v. Wade for an excellent example where the SCOTUS blew it and "created a right" where none existed). What they SHOULD HAVE done, 50 years ago, was to remand the case to the several States. That is precisely why the Framers gave us the 10th Amendment.

This goes right back the "Original Intent". The framers did intend for the document to be "living" under the original usage of the term. Hell, even under most common usage today (in other contexts) this still holds true; a living document is one that is intended to be regularly updated and amended to bring it into contemporary relevance. Nothing more. The fact that the Constitution has specific requirements that must be met in order to enact those changes is irrelevant to the plain meaning of the term.

And with specific respect to the constitution, the term has been corrupted into a new meaning so that that original intent could be subverted and ignored. The document is still intended to be "living", but the left needs it to be so without the prerequisite methods for enacting those updates. Hence their need to pervert the common and normal meaning of the term to mean "the Constitution can mean whatever we say it does, and damn the original intent". If they can just change the definition of terms on a whim then "the people" can mean "only service personnel" and "free speech" can mean "approved speech" etc. etc.

But as mentioned in my prior post, this new interpretation of the concept turns not just the Constitution, but our entire concept of legal jurisprudence on its head. We need to point that out every time this new concept of "living document" is brought up by a leftist and set the record straight; "Yes, it is a living document that can change, no, there is an already established path to enact that. If you want the meaning to change then do it properly, through the methods laid out in the document itself." Make them defend their choice to not do that, make them admit they can't because they do not have the majority of people needed to do that.

 

[sobo]

This goes right back the "Original Intent". The framers did intend for the document to be "living" under the original usage of the term. Hell, even under most common usage today (in other contexts) this still holds true; a living document is one that is intended to be regularly updated and amended to bring it into contemporary relevance. Nothing more. The fact that the Constitution has specific requirements that must be met in order to enact those changes is irrelevant to the plain meaning of the term.

And with specific respect to the constitution, the term has been corrupted into a new meaning so that that original intent could be subverted and ignored. The document is still intended to be "living", but the left needs it to be so without the prerequisite methods for enacting those updates. Hence their need to pervert the common and normal meaning of the term to mean "the Constitution can mean whatever we say it does, and damn the original intent". If they can just change the definition of terms on a whim then "the people" can mean "only service personnel" and "free speech" can mean "approved speech" etc. etc.

But as mentioned in my prior post, this new interpretation of the concept turns not just the Constitution, but our entire concept of legal jurisprudence on its head. We need to point that out every time this new concept of "living document" is brought up by a leftist and set the record straight; "Yes, it is a living document that can change, no, there is an already established path to enact that. If you want the meaning to change then do it properly, through the methods laid out in the document itself." Make them defend their choice to not do that, make them admit they can't because they do not have the majority of people needed to do that.

I believe that we are in agreement, although we say it differently.

 

[MTpockets]

 

[Flopsweat]

I believe that we are in agreement, although we say it differently.

living document. Definition | Law Insider

Sample Contracts and Business Agreements

www.lawinsider.com

This means that it can be changed as needed. A Decision-Maker may want to change a supporter, or have a different type of help in making a certain kind of decision. A supporter may decide to drop out. Or, a new supporter may be identified. The Supported Decision-Making Agreement is meant to be easy to change. The most important thing is that the Decision-Maker is getting the kind of help she wants in the areas she wants the help, from the people that she wants to help her.

I'm sure we all agree on the true meaning of the phrase and the recent attempted perversion thereof.

 

[lucusloc]

I believe that we are in agreement, although we say it differently.

Yes, I just wanted to emphasize that we should be making the leftists defend themselves by being more clear on our side, not just accepting their new terminology and saying that it does not work that way; Yes it is a living document, no that does not mean it works as they say it does. I would even go one further and state that we should correct their definition outright; "oh, what you mean is not 'living document', what you mean is 'living definition', those are not the same thing. . . " (Full disclaimer, I just thought of this clarification. I need to try using it in an actual argument and see if it has any impact.)

 

[Caveman Jim]

Just hold on a danged minute…. MY avatar has friken "LASERS" shooting from its eyes, that ain't no cartoon, man!!!

Come on man, It's not you man…

 

[Jay Walk]

"Fixing" the Constitution is part of the problem. Stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution.

Newsome proposed JUST THAT as a 2024 Presidential election move. People will vote for it too, unfortunately.