The Constitution is Not a "Living" Document

When one refers to the Constitution as being a "living" document they are referring to their ability to interpret the meaning behind the words written as they relate to today's society. This should be the first clue that the Constitution is, in fact, not a "living" document. By reading the debates given at the time by the various Founding Fathers, along with their personal letters, one can see the importance that the individual's basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness held. Therefore, one must ask him or herself why these men would allow for these rights to be usurped by their government. The obvious answer is that they wouldn't.

Those that would have one believe, because times are different and the world is a much more global place than it once was, there is no room for a piece of paper that was written over two hundred years ago are merely employing smoke and mirrors so that they may change the meaning of this great document without having to go through the process of amending it. But why would anyone do this? What do they have to gain from this sleight of hand? By their nature, constitutional amendments are difficult and time-consuming to pass. If one can simply refer to the document as "living" then they are able to bypass the amendment process.

One has to understand that the amendment process was designed in such way as to provide for only the most agreeable additions to be added to the Constitution. In doing this, the integrity of the document, along with its original intent, was guaranteed not to materially change based on the whim of whatever party happened to be in control of Congress at the time. Today, this would also protect the Constitution from being changed by whatever lobbyist group happened to have the ear, or more appropriately the pocket, of a Congressman or woman. The reality of the situation is that the checks and balances system devised by our Founding Fathers has proven to be ineffective in controlling the usurpation of power by the various branches of government. This, however, is more a result of the people's refusal to keep tabs on their government.

When one allows the document to be understood as "living" they are, in effect, giving the Supreme Court the ability to legislate from the bench. The Founders seeing a strong judicial branch as undesirable gave them the least amount of governmental power. As the world has seen, however, the Supreme Court has turned this around, usurping power and quickly becoming the strongest branch. This has allowed the beliefs of a person, rather than the people of the United States, to become law. By working through the amendment process a future amendment has a much greater chance of being rejected. If legislation comes from the bench it only has to be agreed upon by a majority of the nine sitting justices. As President Lincoln warned in his First Inaugural Address (1861), "If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

So, because one cannot refer to the Constitution as a "living" document and expect to be guaranteed his or her rights it is unbelievable that it was ever intended that way by our Founding Fathers. The Constitution is our ultimate protection from a tyrannical government, but we have to be careful to protect it. If we are to continue allowing the usurpation of power and misapplication of the meaning of the Constitution we will be applying our own chains of servitude. As the great German thinker, Johann Goethe, once said, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."