The Living Constitution vs. Original Public Meaning

Pajamas Media ^ | Sept. 12 | Clayton e. Cramer

[AJKauf]

I’m always amazed by how many Americans completed their educations while believing that the job of the U.S. Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and that this means “to figure out what the Founders intended.” Those who were paying a bit more attention, or who took political science classes in college, often know that there are different ways to interpret the Constitution.

There are a lot of different interpretive models, but I’m going to focus on two: “the living Constitution” and “original public meaning.” “The living Constitution” became popular in the mid-1930s in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s stubborn refusal to approve some of the regulatory measures that the Roosevelt administration thought necessary to revive the U.S. economy. The concept goes back to a decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Missouri v. Holland (1920), in which the power of Congress to make international treaties collided with the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of powers to the states.

Justice Holmes explained that when it came to “the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters.” (“Master, it’s alive!”) Holmes decided that the decision had to be made “in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what said a hundred years ago.”

Holmes was honest enough to realize that Art. VI, which makes “all Treaties … the supreme Law of the Land,” had been superseded by the later Tenth Amendment. Did a treaty for the protection of migratory birds take precedence over an amendment that Congress passed and the states had ratified?..

[Westbrook]

“Living Document” is just Newspeak for “Dead Letter”.

[OneWingedShark]

“Words have meaning... except when we don’t want them to.” is apparently what it amounts to.

[nathanbedford]

There are a quarter of the million people on the streets of Washington DC right now because the Supreme Court of the United States has abdicated its responsibilities in maintaining the Constitution and in so doing has forfeited its standing as a protector of the people. Most people on the streets of Washington instinctively know that they will have no recourse in the courts and that it is now up to them alone.

[FrankR]

The Constitution is what it is...it's just that it's getting in the way of a liberal takeover and they don't like it.

As long as we have a Constitution, we will have America...without it, we have a third world country run by dictators and freedom will be a thing of the past.

To make believers out of any future elected officials, we need to clean house (and senate) at the next election. We have to show these clowns that we are not their "subjects" and we "hire" them to represent us...to wit they are doing a crappy job.

Show them we mean business and clean'em out and the evil will be out of power, and the scum that's left will think twice before thinking that America will stand for the nonsense we've seen in the last 20 years from that cesspool in DC.

Kennedy is out of there, which is a good time to retake the government and put it back where it belongs, working FOR the people, not the other way around.

[Oratam]

Living Constitution = No Constitution

I was taught the Founders/Framers insisted on a written constitution in reaction to Britain's "unwritten constitution" which was the accumulated laws and traditions of England presumably going back to Magna Carta . . . as well as whatever the ruling party in Parliament said it was.

Lib professors love to extol the genius of the Framers in fashioning so revolutionary a document . . . then tell us in so many words in doesn't mean anything at all.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>> there are different ways to interpret the Constitution...

Translation, there are many ways to trample on the Constitution. Modern liberalism is responsible for fostering the idea that our Constitution is a "living document", thus undermining its entire purpose. Sad and pathetic.

[Dick Bachert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqw7kXG0kxU

[Dick Bachert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqw7kXG0kxU

[Dick Bachert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqw7kXG0kxU

[Dick Bachert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqw7kXG0kxU

[SES1066]

When I hear that we have to have a 'Living Constitution' because the Founders could not have envisioned all of what has happened 222 years later, I want to HURL! My immediate reaction is to turn on the miscreant and ask what did they think the Amendment Process was for? (By the by - How many are there and no fair peeking!) When the usual answer of; "It is too hard to amend", is uttered, I agree and say that is the way it is designed and what of it?

After that it boils down to a desire for a more intrusive and activist government and I tell them that they can either vote and amend it or move to a more favorable country of their choice. Unfortunately it looks like too many of these idiots voted recently.

[DWar]

It all depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.

[UncleVanya]

TAKE ACTION NOW - NO MORE SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
The thing we have to do now, without any hesitation, is vote out this current Congress in 2010. Then take back our Nation in 2012. If we do not mobilize ourselves and others now to do this in ways far beyond where most of us have ever engaged in political matters, we will lose this country. And have ourselves to blame.
FRIENDS, WE CAN NO LONGER JUST 'PREACH TO THE CHOIR' -- WE MUST CARRY THIS MESSAGE TO ALL WE KNOW AND ACT NOW. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.