The Constitution of the U.S.S.R. has often been called one of the most beautiful documents ever written pertaining to governance for and by the people. Dead as a doornail even before the ink was dry.

I would say that we Americans do have a “living” Constitution; but the “living” part of it is us making sure that every original word of that document as amended still lives every moment of our existence. If we want to change something in it, we ALL get to address such a change via the very processes established by that Constitution. Any contemporary politico who thinks he can interpret that parchment to meet his mindset of the moment is a fool who does not understand our history. As John Steinbeck once said in essence, the people who migrated from Europe to America were the tough ones, brave enough to give up their lives and families in the Old World and come to a strange and unknown land with the determination to make a good and free life for themselves. Those without such courage and determination were the ones who stayed behind. See you all in November 2010.

“I believe it is a living constitution, Article 5 tells us how to propose and ratify changes.”

Precisely – I’m flummoxed by those who try to sell that the “Living Constitution” means being able to re-interpret it to suit whatever is fashionable that week.

(I’m reminded somehow of Justice Scalia’s reference to consulting foreign laws and the rationale for their selection, roughly “.. to the extent they agree with your position.”)

The Amendment process is *clearly* the one and only way to adapt the Constitution – certainly not by arbitrarily re-interpreting it whenever some individual judge thinks, in his/her opinion, that it needs modification. One person does not have the right to change the Constitution.

jack,

You just new someone was going to ask you “how” didn’t you ?

I guess I’ll be your huckleberry…

“What do you guys expect from a Immigrant, war bride…who actually cares, she said that she never intended on staying and then married her meal ticket. Just another example of the poor quality of Immigrants (Legal & Illegal).” – Had Enough

Very strange, Lovisa. Initially I just didn’t want HE’s remark to go unnoticed. Brian writes that he understands my feelings and that I may not be the only one who feels “that way”, but I don’t see anyone speaking up against HE’s hateful remarks even yet. I know the authors here often jump down other’s throats when they are accused of tacit agreement with hateful speech (and they’ll gripe on me too) and all in the spirit of free speech. “We don’t put limits on what anyone says here” (an assertion that is becoming increasingly questionable, I might add) is the mantra. Yet no one either has the courage to come out and say that calling you a poor quality immigrant (legal OR illegal) war bride who married a meal ticket, is simply hate speech by which they cannot associate themselves.

Certainly, there are no requirements for dissociation, it’s simply that tacit agreement is most certainly implied.

It was certainly wrong of me to re-copy multiple posts with HE’s comment, and Brian was right to chide me. While ubiquity was the point, it was an inappropriate response on my part.

I wish I could start a new country, perhaps in antarctica, I would bring one form of legislation, the constitution and bill of rights. Then I would only accompany it with 1 document that stated the constitution was written with painstaking detail and extreme care so as not to be misunderstood or interperated in any other way than it plainly states. Then as subdivisions in the country popped up (states) they would have the power to make adjustments and additions to their areas as long as they stayed confined by the constitution. What an amazing country I would have.