Pros And Cons Of A Living Constitution

The notion of a living Constitution has greatly developed the American system. It has brought innovative perspectives on how the courts should be responding to constitutional situations. As well, it creates a basis for society to grow through means of acceptance and progressive viewpoints. The constitution should not be used to fit policy outcomes, and that would be the intent originalists seem to push for. Furthermore, there are two distinct reasons why the argument for the living constitution is stronger then the argument for the original intent. First, the words and the framing of the document are deliberatively vague, and secondly, the notion of the constitution as a ‘living tree’ has created tremendous progress for the country. Therefore,

This is a concept used in interpreting the Constitution of United States. It is based on the notion that the Constitution has a relevant meaning beyond the original text and is an evolving document that changes over time. Furthermore, the constitution is a living document because it has greatly surpassed the Founding Father’s idealistic propositions. As well, the founding Father’s original intent would reflect upon the time it was written, which means that the people who obtain the rights, are only white mean who own land – because that is the historical reflection of the people within the nation. Therefore, the constitution needs to be interpreted on an evolving spectrum, as William J. Brennan states, “our amended Constitution is the lodestar for our aspirations. Like every text worth reading, it is not crystalline. The phrasing is broad, and the limitations of its provisions are not clearly marked. Its majestic generalities and ennobling pronouncements are both luminous and obscure. This ambiguity calls forth interpretation, the interaction of reader and text.” Brennan’s argument embodies the notion of the living document, that people need to associate both the texts and the current time into achieving a relevant

It is a known fact that the constitution was originally a small document, especially compared to the legislations passed by government today; which can be hundreds of pages long. Therefore, one can argue that the founders made the document small on the basis that it was meant to evolve into something larger, because if the founders really wanted the document interpreted on it’s original intent, it; arguably, would be much large and more extensively detailed, which would have been a difficult document to ratify if it contained extensive information. There is a specific section in the constitution that demonstrates this point. The necessary and proper clause, found in article I, section 8. This clause denotes the power to Congress, and allows Congress “to make laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof.” The necessary and proper clause has been argued as being a convenient piece of piece of legislation placed within the Constitution. James Madison explained in Federalist 44, that the article was of mere convenience, he