Amazon.com Widgets

Strict constructionism (yes) vs. living constitution (US Constitution) (no): Which interpretation of the US Constitution is superior?

  • Interpretation is another way of saying I don't like it.

    The constitution is written for a specific purpose. It is not to be ignored or altered except by the will of the people. Whether someone's heart is in the right place is not relevant. The government stands with a very specific set of rules otherwise you open the door to favoritism and fraud. If a change is needed, then it will be the will of the people through amendments, not through mood.

  • The constitution is maleable

    Strict malleable is the only legitimate way of interpreting the constitution, as it is an otherwise worthless document. In the idea of a living constitution lies an inherent lack of regard for it. If one can justify actions as constitutional to meet their own needs, then the constitution might as well not exist. As such there is a way to change the constitution through the amendment process. This is important so that no one violates the constitution, it can be changed, with the times, or opinions or for an otherwise agreeable reason. Those with the idea of a living constitution do so to bypass the protections that lie within it. The constitution is broad to serve it's purpose and yet also malleable to ensure that it adapts to changing times.

  • Live with our times

    We should look at events as they happen not necessarily base thing word for word. The year is 2013 we do of course have to make some adoption so we can understand things. If we do not allow for this then perhaps things will not go as good as they should.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.