Living Constitution

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Malum Prohibitum, Oct 2, 2006.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,352
    385
    83
    The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. — SOUTH CAROLINA v. US, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

    :?:
     
  2. wwomack

    wwomack New Member

    160
    0
    0
    That's not what I was taught in public school! I remember the phrase "living document" was used. It always sounded like :censored: to me when the teacher said that. How could a written document mean anything but what it says and what the writer meant it to say?
     

  3. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    My teacher defined "living document" as being able to amend it.
     
  4. viper32cm

    viper32cm New Member

    760
    0
    0
    I would say I'm suprised that the Supreme Court isn't following its own precedent, but I'm not.

    Or as one of my professors puts it. "If a word can mean anything, it means nothing" If the constitution is a "living document" it really is worthless.
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,352
    385
    83
    I think I know which professor that was.