The American Spectator

Doorgunner| 6.4.09 @ 6:49AM

David Matthews @ 6.3.09 9:13AM

“I may be a coon but at least I'm not a poor conservative loser” .

hmm,

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmathew1/3578860185/

That doesn't look like a small, furry, nocturnal mammal to me. That looks like a pasty, never-worked-a-day-in-his-life little white boy.

Darin| 6.4.09 @ 7:00AM

The Constitution is a legal document, which contains a self-defined process (Amendments) to incorporate changes. Calling it a "living" document and making it subject to interpretation is a bad practice. Trying to read into it something which is not specifically addressed is a bad practice. It is truly sad that a majority of Americans do not really understand these basic facts about the Constitution, let alone are unable to name more than 1 or 2 of the Bill of Rights.

Robbins Mitchell| 6.4.09 @ 7:07AM

I always thought that the proper rebuttal to the 'living,breathing' trope that was advanced by anAL GOREtentive and his ilk,would be to simply respond that all that means is that like a living breathing human being, if you torture it enough,you can make it say anything you want....which of course is precisely what they have in mind.

Mike| 6.4.09 @ 9:46AM

To TAS,
I've been visiting your site for a week now. I have tried to post rational thoughts and opinions, trying to keep in mind one should be respectful of others in a public forum created for discussion of current events. One of the main reasons I read the comments posted is to see what others have to say about the particular article in question. However, it appears you have allowed a flaming war to override the purpose of these forums that has me questioning whether any useful insight that might be gained worth the exposure to this hate speak. Granted one could just ignore such posts and read the relevant content, but I am only human. This seems to be an every day thing here. I will not post in TAS after this till you have corrected the current enviroment that exist here.
If you cannot responsibly moderate your site, I question your ability to be called a useful community endeavor that I assumed was aimed at bringing forth intelligent insight to a very complex world.
Sincerely, Mike

janet| 6.4.09 @ 11:03AM

Totally understand where you are coming from, Mike, and empathize. Reading the raging posts by the likes of a Dave Matthews can be grating but I have always said, let them speak. Their ignorance, hate, intolerance and lack of any sound reasonings and judgments shines through every time. They are the poster children of what is wrong with liberalism. Case in point is this article. Excellent in its scope but loser Dave cannot argue on the merits so he has to slander and rage. Tolerance is the ability to provide the same rights to another individual with opposing views, that you yourself have. Obviously while the left verbally champions "tolerance" they are the most intolerant of all. I do think, however, that TAS can and should do a better job of screening posts and making sure they are on point. If all they are is just ranting proclamations of a lunatic, then they should not be posted in forums to debate subjects but allocated to a "junk" site which can be accessed by anybody who wants a laugh or who wants to view leftwing liberal rantings ad nauseam. Funny how they like to say we "lost" the election and to get over it. Looks like THEY cannot get over the sorry excuse of blaming everything on Bush.

John| 6.4.09 @ 11:19AM

it's a living Constitution only to the extent that you can amend it under its own provisions. why don't we just read the text.

Old Texican| 6.4.09 @ 12:14PM

The Unites States Constitution is INDEED A LIVING ENTITY!
It is the Guardian at the gates, protecting us all from the ravening beasts of power-seeking persons in government.

So my argument would go something like this:

Please don't feed the bears, and tigers, and jackals behind those bars and gates.
Instead, let's nourish and treasure the "Guardian"
and let's perfect his armour and weapons that allow "him" to contain the ever evolving craftiness and strengths of the beasts behind those bars.
Ladies and gentlemen, it appears to me that our Guardian has been beaten down to one knee in these dark days, though his Sword and shield are still poised for battle, and his head is still held high on our behalf.
Right now...IN THESE DAYS...we have to make a choice.
We can still make our collective little strengths combine to support our Guardian, and whisper encouragement in his ear while we shelter behind his shield.
OR
We shall all lose our liberty piecemeal and only whimper as we are dragged off into serfdom, or watch millions of us slaughtered as we fight to re-institute his Guardian powers.

You know, to digress for just a moment, gun-fearers in this country point out the numbers of senseless murders or accidents that occur in our country due to an armed population.
Yep!
...but think a moment about the uncounted millions of innocent people slaughtered by run-amok governments due to UN-armed populations, either in imperialistic wars, or simple executions and starvation.

How can we help our Guardian? Thoughts?

Brian| 6.4.09 @ 1:41PM

The author hit it right on the nose. I have used that argument for years when confronted with the "living document" question. I have consistently gotten a deer in the headlights look when I say "of course it's a living document", then pause to see the smug, self-satisfied look on their faces before continuing, "it lives and breathes through the amendment process. That's how slavery was outlawed, women got the vote, and the entire bill of rights came into being."

Bud Hammons| 6.4.09 @ 2:37PM

As the article rightly notes, the usual alibi to appeal to the 'living document' doctrine is that the Founders could not have anticipated everything with which future generations might be confronted, such as technical innovations, social change, etc. This trope fundamentally distorts the actual subject matter of the Constitution - human nature and the architecture of a governmental structure that would allow human beings to live together in liberty. The notion that human nature is mutable by social Utopians is refuted by the fact that the ancient Greek tragedies, the Bible, Shakespeare, and numerous other works continue to provide accurate windows into the realities of humanity. Therefore, the need for a 'living document' doctrine with respect to the Constitution is superfluous at best, mendacious at worst.

There is an opportunity to turn the 'living document' argument against its protagonists. The architecture of a living thing cannot be altered in a significant manner without killing it -- even introduction of genetic material in a most entities above the single celled lifeforms. Hence, treating Constitution as a 'living document' argument risks killing off the patient outright.

Bud Hammons| 6.4.09 @ 2:39PM

As the article rightly notes, the usual alibi to appeal to the 'living document' doctrine is that the Founders could not have anticipated everything with which future generations might be confronted, such as technical innovations, social change, etc. This trope fundamentally distorts the actual subject matter of the Constitution - human nature and the architecture of a governmental structure that would allow human beings to live together in liberty. The notion that human nature is mutable by social Utopians is refuted by the fact that the ancient Greek tragedies, the Bible, Shakespeare, and numerous other works continue to provide accurate windows into the realities of humanity. Therefore, the need for a 'living document' doctrine with respect to the Constitution is superfluous at best, mendacious at worst.

There is an opportunity to turn the 'living document' argument against its protagonists. The architecture of a living thing cannot be altered in a significant manner without killing it -- even introduction of genetic material in a most entities above the single celled lifeforms. Hence, treating Constitution as a 'living document' argument risks killing off the patient outright.

Roy| 6.4.09 @ 3:52PM

When you really think that somebody is alive, you don't twist and misrepresent what he said.
If I asserted that in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of Mr. Witt's article was the statement that Mr. Witt enjoyed sacrificing chickens to Satan, I would get sued for libel.

It's people that are confident the Constitution is dead and gone that are so happy to lie about what it implies.

ds80| 6.4.09 @ 4:06PM

In the sense in which they are intended, claiming it is a "living" Constitution is the same sophistry as advocating for a woman's "right" to "choose".

Phil Di Valerio| 6.4.09 @ 6:20PM

The Constitution is a living document. But it's the people who give it life, not the courts. The Constitution expresses what we've all agree upon as guidance for how the federal government is to operate and, perhaps more importantly, where it is limited. A constitutional amendment is rightly a difficult and complex process. If the Constitution can be changed at the whim of an empathetic judge, then our system is weakened because there is no longer any connection between the will of the people and the structure of our most important governing document. For those who favor a living constitution in which judges dictate what is and what is not constitutional, remember that judges do not always act in predictable ways.

Old Texican| 6.4.09 @ 6:39PM

WELL mR. CRAPPER!

I thought I was contributing to adult thought here.
No thoughts provoked?
OK!
I won't waste very much more time here...
Duh...
"...For those who favor a living constitution in which judges dictate what is and what is not constitutional, remember that judges do not always act in predictable ways. "

Duh...

R| 6.4.09 @ 7:57PM

If it's a living document, then why'd they write it down?

stmichrick| 6.4.09 @ 8:19PM

The best way to deal with Sotomayor is have her defend identity politics and the intellectual and historical justification for considering the Constitution to be a 'living document.'

We need to end the easy rhetoric employed by state-run media and glib leftist politicians.

Charles Stefan| 6.5.09 @ 3:10AM

The U. S Constitution is not a "living document". Was not meant to be. It can only be changed by the Amendment process. Seventy-Five percent of State legislatures need to ratify (approve) a new amendment. The way things have gone, the
Amendmment process maybe should be abolished. Some bad Amendments, the 16th (let the Congress abide by the original constitution Artcile I Section 8, 17th (we should return to the original constitution where senators are appointed by the state legislature) and 26th (need to return to be 21 years of age to vote), these need to be done away with. We have gotten away from the original concept of a strong "states rights" and federal government that concentrates on defending the sovereignty of the states by providing for securing and national sevices, national highways, sea ports, Federal Aviation Administration that provides up-to-date cross country air safety, national weather services (The National Weather Service has been doing an excellent job of providing new technology that informs citizens of changing weather conditions and warns of pending dangerous conditions, like tornados, blizzards, heavy rains, flood conditions and the like. Our government has no business running businesses, like , railroads, manufacturing automobiles, banking, insurance, or anything else. Look at the years the govenment has run the AMTRACK rail system how billions of dollars have been spent and has rail service ever been improved or expanded? The railroads still run on tracks built in the 1800's and later. When has a new line been layed other than for maintenance of existing lines? Competition is the life blood a state, a nation, the world. Governments are monopolies and therefore there is no incentive to change and improve. That is why all dictitorial goverments fail and are replaced. For example, Greeks, Romans, United Kingdom Empire, Hitler, USSR, Saddam Hussein, to name a few. And look what happened in the Balkins and how those countries were reorganized. Our founders were exceptionally blessed individuals and we should not be second guessing their work. Food for thought. In God We Trust.

Matthew Friendly| 6.5.09 @ 1:38PM

Mr. Witt:

Excellent piece, but you misstate or misconstrue Buck v. Bell. The case did not "discover a constitutional right to forcibly sterilize," and Holmes never suggested such a thing. The government doesn't have rights, it has powers. The case held there was no constitutional right against forcible sterilization if the democratic process determined it was a permissible criminal penalty. Two very different things.