With more than a year behind us since the Heller decision coupled with the more recent confirmation of Justice Sonya Sotomayor, I’ve noticed that Al Gore has generated a copious amount of debate over a “living” vs. “static” Constitution on his interweb tubes.
The general themes are that a living Constitution will continuously evolve to fit the society it currently resides in, ever changing to meet the needs(desires) of the times, whilst the static position is that the Constitution is set in stone and can not be changed without irreparable damage to the original substance on which our country was founded.
I call bullshit.
For those unfamiliar with the card game of the same name, it is a sultry 3-way orgy of poker, politics and a thin slice of “go fish” that would make a Fugu chef quite proud.
A “living Constitution”, in which our Fundamental Rights are subjected to winning a popularity contest protects absolutely nothing and reduces a Fundamental Right to the lowly status of a government approved privilege.
A “static Constitution” locks us into a pigeon hole for which there is no escape from the wisdom of dead people.
All too often we envision, manufacture and then succumb to our own constructions. These are not the only options before us.
In fact, there’s only one option which incorporates the other two AND keeps the spirit of the original alive.
The Zombie Constitution!
Half dead, half alive…………..always present.
I can smell your brains!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, that was supposed to be an acknowledgement of your advanced critical thinking and logic skills but it came out sounding a bit creepy.
The main idea is that our Founding Fathers were brilliant people who did their utmost best to forge a document that, in their minds at the time, would ensure that their children and their children’s children would live free from the British Crown.
We have added to the original Bill of Rights which has granted more freedoms to more people. We have expanded freedoms to those we formally held as property and to those who bore our children; the very inheritors we wished to enjoy the freedoms hard fought through blood, sweat and toil.
A “living Constitution” is all unicorn farts and marshmallow rainbows when WE ADD TO IT the freedom our Forefathers envisioned for themselves.
A “static Constitution” would hold us back and shackle us to the days of slavery and an absence of women‘s suffrage(That‘s the Right to vote for any antis who might read this).
So let us embrace the position that as long as we expand freedoms, the Constitution is a living document. If anyone or any organization wishes to restrict or edit items out of the original document, well that's a different story.
After all that serious crap, what would the Founders think of modern society? What if they were still alive and wished to communicate their original intent to our current society?