Do you contend/support the view that the constitution is a living document, thus not bound by it's original intent?
paulsen, -- do you contend/support the view that the constitution is a living document, thus not bound by it's original intent?
paulsens entire posting history on this forum is a record of his support for 'majority rule' style democracy, -- one which ignores constitutional restraint or original intent.
Paulsen, do you have the guts to attempt an honest answer or rebuttal?
I don't connect the two.
First, yes, the U.S. Constitution is a living document. By that I mean that it is not fixed and may be modified by the amendment process.
Second, original intent means less to me than original meaning. Some people look at original intent and interpret that as "sole" intent -- I disagree.
For the first 100 years, the Commerce Clause was only used to remove state barriers. That doesn't mean that's all it was ever intended to do -- if so, the Founding Fathers would have written it differently.
The original meaning of "to regulate" goes well beyond the original intent of "to remove barriers". "To regulate" was used by Thomas Jefferson to prohibit trade with Europe in 1807 and to prohibit alcohol sales to the Indians in 1803. So "to regulate" includes to prohibit, even though it wasn't originally used that way among the states.
It's disingenuous for you to conclude that the U.S. Constitution is a living document when it is applied beyond its original intent but still well within its original meaning.