4
4
0
Do contracts exist as living documents? Can you change the interest rate on your mortgage or other provisions as the financial situation changes? In order to do so you need to renegotiate with the lender. The Founding Fathers knew that the people would have to have a method of making changes in the Constitution from time to time. For the government to change the meaning of the Constitution would be like having an attorney that is working for the lender to arbitrarily change the terms of your mortgage contract without your consent. They provided for these changes to be made using the Amendment process. To say that the Constitution is a living document provides these would be usurpers of power an insidious way to change it simply by interpreting it differently. The Constitution is based upon the Declaration of Independence and the eternal truth contained in it. The principles of the unalienable rights have always been true and will continue to be. To circumvent the amendment process and make changes by interpretation rather than by Constitutional Amendment is how our government officials have tricked and swindled the American people for decades. The Constitution and the paper it is written on is currently receiving life support but the principles upon which it was written will never die as long there are men and women that yearn to be free.
Posted in these groups: 
Constitution
Bill of Rights
Constitution Bill of Rights
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 12
4
4
0
I was thinking about this topic while driving to the auto store this morning and wanted to add a few points...
In my opinion, the constitution is very much a "living document". This idea that all the founders "agreed" on the text is completely wrong. During the writing, there were 2 very clear sides - the Jeffersonians were all about state's rights and limited federal power, and then there were people like Hamilton who not only wanted a strong federal government, but wanted things like a "president elected for life". Hamilton (and Washington and Adams to a significant degree) wanted a very strong federal government that had many powers over the states. Jefferson and his supporters wanted extremely limited federal power and almost all other powers delegated to states.
James Madison was of the opinion early on that the constitution was pointless and would lead to a dissolution of the republic, because nobody could agree on the terms of power. As the drafting went on however, he realized that, as a result of the disagreement, the text of the constitution was being written intentionally vague. He realized that the ambiguity and the ability of all sides to interpret the constitution according to their own beliefs was what would make it work. The constitution isn't a set of rules as much as it's a basis for conversation.
In my opinion, the constitution is very much a "living document". This idea that all the founders "agreed" on the text is completely wrong. During the writing, there were 2 very clear sides - the Jeffersonians were all about state's rights and limited federal power, and then there were people like Hamilton who not only wanted a strong federal government, but wanted things like a "president elected for life". Hamilton (and Washington and Adams to a significant degree) wanted a very strong federal government that had many powers over the states. Jefferson and his supporters wanted extremely limited federal power and almost all other powers delegated to states.
James Madison was of the opinion early on that the constitution was pointless and would lead to a dissolution of the republic, because nobody could agree on the terms of power. As the drafting went on however, he realized that, as a result of the disagreement, the text of the constitution was being written intentionally vague. He realized that the ambiguity and the ability of all sides to interpret the constitution according to their own beliefs was what would make it work. The constitution isn't a set of rules as much as it's a basis for conversation.
(4)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSG Gerhard S. I may have misspoke if I said the constitution was intentionally written vague. What I was trying to say is that there was tremendous disagreement, and as a result - which turned out good - was that the the text was ambiguous on many topics.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
MAJ (Join to see) You are correct that the Central government was not created to deal with details, their scope was General, broad, and defined, where the States, and Local levels of government were tasked with taking care of the matters of the people. This is why words like Education, Health care and law enforcement were not included in the Constitution.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
MAJ (Join to see) I would ask that you elaborate on the ambiguous text to which you are referring. I have read the Constitution numerous times, and have taken courses about the Constitution. I find much of the language "general" to not put limits on progress, am hesitant to describe any as ambiguous. Just curious as to the language to which you are referring.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) - respectfully, I’d ask that you recheck some of your history, as you’re off base on several points. While Jefferson leaned toward the Anti-Federalist camp on some issues, (those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution were called Anti-Federalists, not Jeffersonian), he wasn’t a fervent supporter of extremely limited federal powers. He actually endorsed ratification of the Constitution, on the understanding the a Bill of Rights of some kind would follow. He didn’t oppose the Constitution like a true anti-Federalist, such as Patrick Henry. He didn’t contribute essays to the Anti-Federalist papers. Heck, he wasn’t even at the Constitutional Convention.
You write, “James Madison was of the opinion early on that the constitution was pointless and would lead to a dissolution of the republic, because nobody could agree on the terms of power.” This is an interesting statement, considering that Madison is widely considered ‘the father of the Constitution’. At the Annapolis Convention (1786), Madison was instrumental in realizing that the Articles of Confederation was weak, ineffective and had to be replaced. As a result, Madison lobbied for, and and got enough support for, the Philadelphia (Constitutional) Convention (1787), where the Constitution would come to life.
He wrote the Virginia Plan, which served as the blueprint for our Constitution, and guided the ground levels of early debates at the Constitutional Convention. Some of the basic tenets proposed in the Virginia plan were Bicameral legislature, three branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial), and proportional representation. (Any of this sound familiar?)
Furthermore, Madison went on to write several of the Federalist Papers, particularly #10. The Federalist papers were essays written by Madison, Hamilton and John Jay, in support of the ratification of the Constitution. Collectively often described as the greatest writings in American political Science, #10 is often described as the most important/influential of the group. In a nutshell, what I’m getting at is, if you have any evidence from any remotely reliable source stating that, “Madison was of the opinion early on that the constitution was pointless and would lead to a dissolution of the republic, because nobody could agree on the terms of power”, please cite. (*note, one of the overlooked legendary qualities of our founding fathers was their ability to compromise. The Convention was no different.)
The Constitution wasn’t pointless to Madison. It was essential. If the Constitution was the brainchild of anyone, it was him. He saw the need for it. He envisioned it. He enabled compromises for it. He made it happen. He played a big part in writing it. But it definitely wasn’t pointless to him.
However, you’re correct in stating that the Constitution is vague/ambiguous in area. SSG Gerhard S., you wrote, “I would ask that you elaborate on the ambiguous text.” There are plenty of examples. A subject may be Ambiguously written, or a subject is ambiguous because it’s decidely not written.
Refer to Article 1, Section 8. “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...”. Seems straightforward, but really? ‘General welfare’? That’s about as broad, interpretive, ambiguous a term as you’ll see.
Which brings up the next interesting aspect of ambiguity. Refer to Article 3, about the Supreme Court. It’s very clear as to what the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over. It’s ambiguous as to what it doesn’t have jurisdiction over. Notably, what is and isn’t Constitutional. Who interprets the Constitution? Judicial review. While judicial review was intended by the founders, it isn’t addressed in the Constitution. It took Marbury v Madison (1803) to establish judicial review, thus making it official that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is/isn’t Constitutional.
There are plenty more, but a thesis isn’t necessary.
Best of luck.
You write, “James Madison was of the opinion early on that the constitution was pointless and would lead to a dissolution of the republic, because nobody could agree on the terms of power.” This is an interesting statement, considering that Madison is widely considered ‘the father of the Constitution’. At the Annapolis Convention (1786), Madison was instrumental in realizing that the Articles of Confederation was weak, ineffective and had to be replaced. As a result, Madison lobbied for, and and got enough support for, the Philadelphia (Constitutional) Convention (1787), where the Constitution would come to life.
He wrote the Virginia Plan, which served as the blueprint for our Constitution, and guided the ground levels of early debates at the Constitutional Convention. Some of the basic tenets proposed in the Virginia plan were Bicameral legislature, three branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial), and proportional representation. (Any of this sound familiar?)
Furthermore, Madison went on to write several of the Federalist Papers, particularly #10. The Federalist papers were essays written by Madison, Hamilton and John Jay, in support of the ratification of the Constitution. Collectively often described as the greatest writings in American political Science, #10 is often described as the most important/influential of the group. In a nutshell, what I’m getting at is, if you have any evidence from any remotely reliable source stating that, “Madison was of the opinion early on that the constitution was pointless and would lead to a dissolution of the republic, because nobody could agree on the terms of power”, please cite. (*note, one of the overlooked legendary qualities of our founding fathers was their ability to compromise. The Convention was no different.)
The Constitution wasn’t pointless to Madison. It was essential. If the Constitution was the brainchild of anyone, it was him. He saw the need for it. He envisioned it. He enabled compromises for it. He made it happen. He played a big part in writing it. But it definitely wasn’t pointless to him.
However, you’re correct in stating that the Constitution is vague/ambiguous in area. SSG Gerhard S., you wrote, “I would ask that you elaborate on the ambiguous text.” There are plenty of examples. A subject may be Ambiguously written, or a subject is ambiguous because it’s decidely not written.
Refer to Article 1, Section 8. “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...”. Seems straightforward, but really? ‘General welfare’? That’s about as broad, interpretive, ambiguous a term as you’ll see.
Which brings up the next interesting aspect of ambiguity. Refer to Article 3, about the Supreme Court. It’s very clear as to what the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over. It’s ambiguous as to what it doesn’t have jurisdiction over. Notably, what is and isn’t Constitutional. Who interprets the Constitution? Judicial review. While judicial review was intended by the founders, it isn’t addressed in the Constitution. It took Marbury v Madison (1803) to establish judicial review, thus making it official that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is/isn’t Constitutional.
There are plenty more, but a thesis isn’t necessary.
Best of luck.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I agree with you both... The Constitution is NOT a "living document" it is a defining document, and cannot be altered, only amended. Our Framers wisely wanted us to leave the blemishes on it by forbidding alteration so that we could go back to see our mistakes, lessening the opportunity to repeat them. Our politicians all too often manage to screw even that up, clearly because they wish to ignore the mistakes, or to remain ignorant of the Constitution itself. I remember in January 2013 the 113th Congress recited the Constitution on the House floor and many of the blemishes relating to slavery were omitted. This is exactly the behavior the Framers were hoping to avoid. Ignoring, omitting, or pretending parts of the document don't exist circumvents the intent of leaving those blemishes in the Document.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
I don't subscribe to the notion that the Constitution is a living document. It was forged in such a manner that yes, it can be added to, but not taken away from....and there are some pretty stringent requirements for what it takes to add an Amendment.
Bottom Line: The executive, legislative, and judicial branches all swear an oath of office, just like we do, with this in common:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
Bottom Line: The executive, legislative, and judicial branches all swear an oath of office, just like we do, with this in common:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SGT Richard H. - respectfully, Article 5 has no provisions stating that the Constitution can’t be taken from, only added to. An amendment has been repealed in the past. It can happen again in the future.
There’s nothing preventing just about any part of the Constitution from being removed through the amendment process, hypothetically.
There’s nothing preventing just about any part of the Constitution from being removed through the amendment process, hypothetically.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google