By Selwyn Duke
Since an understanding of the Constitution is so rare nowadays, I've decided to respond to a poster who advocates the reckless and unlawful "living document" philosophy. I address his points at length, and I think you may find elements of the response useful in framing your arguments when defending the Constitution.
Robert Berger wrote:
The constitution is rather similar to the Bible in that any American citizen can use it as an excuse to advocate banning this or that, or making certain things mandatory. But it says absolutely nothing about what personal conduct is permissable or not, or what individual things should be legal or legal. Some homophobic bigots have used it as an excusr to take away rights from gay people and even persecute them, even though it says absolutely nothing about the sexual conduct of private citizens. Others have claimed that there is supposedly no right to privacy in the constitution, and that therefore the government should have the right to pry into the bedrooms of Americans, and others have claimed that it mandates making abortion illegal, even though abortion was a non-issue at the time of the founding fathers, and that if any of them had even mentioned abortion at a meeting ,let alone making it illegal, the others would have thought he was out of his mind !
No, the constitution is NOT an absolutely fixed thing. It is open to differing views of interpetation . No one, not even the members of the supreme court has a monopoly on interpeting it.