Do you believe that the US Constitution is a living document or a dead document? Why?

The real question is this - is the Supreme Court required to interpret the US Constitution as the original framers intended

Original Intent. The theory of interpretation by which judges attempt to ascertain the meaning of a particular provision of a state or federal constitution by determining how the provision was understood at the time it was drafted and ratified.

or can the Supreme Court change the meaning of words to reflect the realities of modern life. I'd believe that an expression like "cruel and unusual punishment" has changed over time as more barbaric forms of punishment have disappeared. Therefore the US Constitution is a living document...

The American Constitution is likely the greatest document ever created by any nation in the history of the world and is designed to be changed when need, but only by constitutional means. Our wise Founders took into consideration future needs and recognized changes would be required so they provided for that need.

Since the Constitution is capable of change it is a living document. Any Liberal fool who thinks that document should be killed is an Enemy and the American Constitution must be defended from all enemies both foreign and domestic.

The Constitution itself has an amendment process that requires a massive Super Majority to change it. When was the last time 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate agreed on anything that 3/4 of the states also agreed to and ratified? I'll tell you. The 27th Amendment was submitted by Congress to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789. The amendment became part of the United States Constitution on May 7, 1992, following a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 12 days.

Because this Amendment process is so difficult, it means strict adherence to the Constitution must be followed using the intent and the definitions used of the times. It means new definitions of terminology can't be used to usurp its authority. It isn't a "living" document. It's what creates the FEDERAL government and gives them their authority. What does FEDERAL mean? It's Theological term that means "bound by a covenant, or sacred treaty" It's a contract. It isn't living, it isn't breathing. It's the law of the land. Without it, there is no President, there is no Congress, there is no Supreme Court, and the states are sovereign individual entities.

Read it yourself. Article I creates the House of Representatives and the Senate and gives the Congress their authorities. Article II creates the President and gives him his authority. Now go to Article III. It creates the Supreme Court and gives them their authority. What authority does it NOT give to the Supreme Court explicitly. I'll tell you that too...it doesn't NOT give the Supreme Court (or any other position created by the Constitution) the authority to INTERPRET it. No where. Nothing. Why? Because it would be ludicrous to create a document that limits the powers of the positions it created and then give them the authority to usurp it. That would be completely pointless to the entire process. You couldn't call them a FEDERAL government if they were only bound by whatever definitions of text they wanted to use.

Do you believe that the US Constitution is a living document or a dead document? Why?

IT"S not about what others believe ... America's Constitution is a Living Document , meaning it can be changed, America's " Forefather Politicians " knew Life and Living changes , sadly, it's not for the better when it comes to a lot of people who are so bad, wrong, terrible, greedy, whining, blaming ... lying , you name it !

That is a loaded question. The framers provided a way to address social and political change through amendments. The Politically Correct Thought Police argue that THEY should be able to reinterpret it to fit their agenda. If you don't like they way something is, get an amendment passed. THAT is the way the Constitution is a "living document," NOT legislation from the bench....

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

It should be treated like a living document because America should not be governed as if it were still the 18th century. We've learned a lot since then.

I believe it to be America's Greatest Document and only changed by a series of votes of a majority of the American people and not systematically ignored when it doesn't suit the intentions of the advancement towards a socialist utpoian nightmare.

It's a living document. Lets all work to preserve our Bill of Rights. This forum is proof that it works.

LIBS, like Obama, are chipping away at our Bill of Rights. Lets protect OUR Bill of Rights. OUR BIll of Rights protects LIBS and CONS alike.

"Censorship: 38 journalism groups slam Obama's 'politically-driven suppression of news'"

by Paul Bedard(@secretsbedard) www.washingtonexaminer.com

"When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state" -- Claire Wolf

Living. The founders included a mechanism for changing it if needed. Clearly they knew that we might need to do that at some point.