>>>>>< 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.
>>>
>>>Your conclusion is an excellent summary. Good job. If you reread your message, though, you will see the conclusion directly contradicts the earlier statement that the Constitution is not open to interpretation. If it were not we would not even need a Supreme Court, would we? The Court's purpose can accurately be described as interpreting the Constitution.
>>
>>Article 3 Section 2 http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec2.html
>>The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...
>>
>>The Constitution is not to be interpreted, it is to be used to interpret cases, legislation, treaties etc. We need the judicial branch to ensure that the Legislative and Executive branches do not violate the Constitution. If the Constitution is open to interpretation, then there is no established rigorous "check" on the other branches, merely the whims of the present justices. The Constitution is meant to stand as THE law establishing and thereby restraining the power of the 3 branches.
>
>I respect your intellect greatly but our interpretations are different. The Constitution is a matter of interpretation. The founders were smart enough to know things would arise that they could not foresee.

Agreed and they provided the mechanism for those unforeseen needs within the Constitution itself.