Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Constitutional Convention

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    If the constitution isn't a "living document", and is interpreted, you will end up creating a kind of legal scriptural fundamentalism. But each to his own I guess...

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
      If the constitution isn't a "living document", and is interpreted, you will end up creating a kind of legal scriptural fundamentalism. But each to his own I guess...
      The Bible is a living document. The Constitution is not.
      “I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
      --Salmon P. Chase

      Comment


      • #33
        Living document
        EXCERPTS:
        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        A living document, also known as an evergreen document or dynamic document, is a document that is continually edited and updated. A simple example of a living document is an article in Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that permits anyone to freely edit its articles, in contrast to "dead" or "static" documents, such as an article in a single edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica.

        A living document may or may not have a framework for updates, changes, or adjustments. This type of document without proper context can change away from its original purpose through multiple uncontrolled edits. This can encourage open collaboration within the network, but in some cases there can also be stagnation if no one takes on the initiative of updating the work. One reason why initiative is not taken to update the document could come from a sense of ambiguity.

        However, a living document may evolve through successive updates, be expanded as needed, and serve a different purpose over time.[1] Living documents are changed through revisions that may or may not reference previous iterative changes. The rate of document drift depends on the structure of the original document, or original intent of such document, or guidelines for modifying such document.
        ...
        In law

        Further information: Living Constitution
        In United States constitutional law, the Living Constitution, also known as loose constructionism, permits the Constitution as a static document to have an interpretation that shifts over time as the cultural context changes. The opposing view, originalism, holds that the original intent or meaning of the writers of the Constitution should guide its interpretation.
        ...
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_document

        Living Constitution
        ...
        In United States constitutional interpretation, the Living Constitution (or loose constructionism) is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.[1]

        While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary.[citation needed] The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document.[citation needed] Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that allowing judges to determine an ever-changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy. The primary alternative to the Living Constitution is most commonly described as originalism.
        ...
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

        Might help to find some common ground on terms and meanings
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • #34
          The USA Constituion was written to reflect the ideals and concepts expressed in the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence, and prevent the abuses listed there after.

          Hence the Constitution is a contract intended not to empower Central Government, but to RESTRAIN Central Government. Since the Keepers of the Constitution are "we the people", not the elected and appointed emplyees of government ~ "guv'mint workers" it was written in a manner meant to be undertandable and usable by the educated and informed citizenry it is meant to serve.

          It was not meant to address all the future petty concerns or issues, that is what laws from the Legislative are meant to do. The Constitution is structural outline of process, where if significant adjustment is needed to reflect changes after its implementation, there is the Amendment process to provide any "fine tuning" that may be needed.
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
            If the constitution isn't a "living document", and is interpreted, you will end up creating a kind of legal scriptural fundamentalism. But each to his own I guess...
            Is that how you guys justify Sharia Law over there?

            Comment

            Latest Topics

            Collapse

            Working...
            X