[robertpaulsen]

"there are people who actually do say that it's a living document"

Well, it is a living document if you're talking about the ability to change it via the amendment process. So maybe you shouldn't be so quick to criticize.

Now, if you mean "living document" in some other sense, you'd better get a whole lot more specific as to what you mean and who said it. 'Cause I never did.

[tacticalogic]

Well, it is a living document if you're talking about the ability to change it via the amendment process. So maybe you shouldn't be so quick to criticize.

You're the only person I have ever seen attribute the phrase "living document" to the Constitution as meaning it can be changed by amendment.

Now, if you mean "living document" in some other sense, you'd better get a whole lot more specific as to what you mean and who said it. 'Cause I never did.

I mean "living document" in the same sense that FDR did when he demanded the the USSC interpret it by that standard, and the same sense that they then applied to it to produce the "substantial effects" doctrine.