Originally Posted by psionandy
Of course then you can have a separate discussion about if the constitution is a document that is 'set in stone' with a completely fixed meaning based on the view of the founding fathers in the 18th century.. or if its a 'living document' which can be continually re-interpreted to keep in line with the will of the people in the 21st century.
The Constitution should never be thought of (and therefore it is not) as a "living, breathing document." As soon as you do, it becomes a worthless, dead document. That is the beauty of the document; it holds up even in today's world.
This is why it is so hard to change. The founders made it very, very hard to change for a good reason.
If people want a change, it can be changed, but that takes lots of effort. This is a good thing. Do we want the Constitution to be easy to change?
So no, it is not and should never be thought of as a living, breathing document.
FYI: To Propose Amendments
"In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.
Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)
To Ratify Amendments
Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition."