>>>< snip >
>>>
>>>>I have little faith in the system as it has been completely corrupted. The very concept of a "living constitution" invalidates the Constitution itself. If it is not the supreme law of the land, but instead open to interpretation then all laws are subject to the same whims of political expediency.
>>>>
>>>>>> The courts recently have been negligent at best in their duty to the Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>< snip>
>>>
>>>This is a really interesting statement. I'm hard pressed to imagine how any document created by human beings (especially in committee) could not be open to interpretation.
>>>
>>>It seems to me that what you're really saying is that when you read it, you interpret it correctly and anyone who reads it differently is merely 'interpreting' it and should therefore be disallowed from doing so.
>>>
>>>Of course, that's just my interpetation. ;)
>>
>>Of course there is more than merely the "document" itself available for anyone wishing to understand the meaning behind it. There are the vigoous debates, the writings of the authors and signators, etc available to examine to understand the intent and meaning behind the finalized words. The Constitution stands as the supreme law of the land and is not open to interpretation. Again, if the supreme law of the land is not set then all laws established under it are meaningless. Thus, no law. Times change and the Founding Fathers established a mechanism requiring supermajorities of the Congress and the States for the Constitution to be amended to account for those changes. It is meant to be difficult to ensure that the whims of the present leaders cannot easily undo the founding principals without rigorous debate and overwhelming agreement.
>
>I'm sorry, but I still stand by my statement that pretty much anything written by human beings is open to interpretation

1+1=2. Interpretation? ;)

>- including the writings of the authors and signators on what they meant when they authored the document. You see all this as black and white and I suppose in your eyes it is, but your eyes are not the only eyes looking at it.



>It's one of the reasons there are constitutional lawyers, constitutional professors and constitutional experts. They all have their own interpretations of what the pieces of the constitution say. But according to you, they have no right to those interpretations, only to yours, which, according to you is not actually an interpretation, but rather a statement of the true meaning.

They are free to study, examine and interpret at their will. They may discuss, debate, offer legal opinion ad naseum, as they are not judges. Judges "solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.aspx

Upon taking the oath of office their opinion and/or interpretation regarding the Constitution is moot. Now they are to uperate under it's rule. They cannot favor rich over poor any more than they can favor one amendment over another.