the constitution isn't a living document, it's forever relevant.
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (10)
sorted by:
Bedrock document. Most people that use the "living document" phrase, mean to change it in such a way that allows the government to infringe upon are rights. Amendments should only clarify existing unalienable rights, or further restrict government.
We don't have a "first amendment right." I wish people would stop getting it wrong.
True and an important distinction. natural rights.
The document was intended to live forever. The Deep State, through election shenanigans, are attempting to stack the deck for destroying this beautiful document that protects our God given existence. WWG1WGA!
The Constitution is most certainly a living document, you might wanna reconsider your thinking there. It was designed very well and does include the mechanisms which allow it to survive and thrive, to adapt and 'evolve' as it were- it lives along side us daily through the years.
It contains it's own self-preservation dictates, it contains the means to add to itself or cull itself down as Society requires be done over Time, via the Amendment process for one thing. That is a 'living' document, one which remains not just relevant but the most durable statement of Societal Government ever devised by Man.
Absolutely the Constitution is a Living document, another proof of that being 'an' intended purpose of it's design is the fact the Second Amendment states 'shall not be infringed'. Other Rights and clauses do not contain such absolute boundaries, it being obvious to the Founders that many aspects of Life would change over the coming years, but that our right to self defense never would. The Constitution was written to include the probabilities of most things changing and so being accommodated in Law, but one Right would never be infringed in any manner.
It Lives.
the way you mean it is the same as my interpretation, which is originalist. it's the same with people who want to preserve the Constitution and follow it.
when you see 'living document' in reference to the Constitution in the mainstream, those are people who basically want to make it say whatever they want at the time instead of actually following it.
a good contrast-
https://www.swindlelaw.com/2017/10/originalism-living-constitution-heritage/
the swamp's BS-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
If that's true why then did you make a false header? You compound the false nature of the header with the blurb about computers being relative to paper and pen and trying to compare THAT to muskets, as if any of that lying narrative is valid.
Why did you post it is dead if you don't think it is?
I know why you did, do you?
You don't know shit about me or much else obviously.
Watch your false mouf fella or fellette.
How about double up on your meds and you might comprehend what you're reading.