Need Help With "Flexible" Constitution Situation

[yepthatsme]

If the law (or the Constitution) does not mean what it was meant to mean; if it's flexible and changing; then it really is a scrap of old paper...we are truly in a democracy and all the tyranny and destruction that inevitably evolves from them. It's when the law is stable and consistent that we can go about our lives, our businesses, and interactions with others in confidence. Just because the shifting meaning of the law is swinging in your direction today, it is very likely it will swinging against you later--then will she support this "evolving quality" she extols?

Excellent post. I would rep you if I could. I hope you won't mind if I use it in my response.

And thanks to everyone that posted. You have all brought up excellent points.

 

[2A_Tom]

If the law (or the Constitution) does not mean what it was meant to mean; if it's flexible and changing; then it really is a scrap of old paper...we are truly in a democracy and all the tyranny and destruction that inevitably evolves from them. It's when the law is stable and consistent that we can go about our lives, our businesses, and interactions with others in confidence. Just because the shifting meaning of the law is swinging in your direction today, it is very likely it will swinging against you later--then will she support this "evolving quality" she extols?

Crush her. See her driven before you. Hear her lamentations.

“Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”

I agree that emphasizing the philosophical argument is more important, but rather than simply not appealing to the authority of the constitution, it would be wise to correct the misunderstanding about the roll of the constitution as part of the philosophical argument. I would rather try to persuade that a society governed by rule of law is superior to a society governed by the whims of popular culture. Because we are a nation of laws we have a prescribed way to update the constitution when it's necessary. But it's intentionally hard to update the constitution to protect the rule of law from the whims of fad.

Yes, the Constitution is a "living" document. That means there are mechanisms to modify it.
That doesn't mean you IGNORE it.

Kut mentioned a Convention, That is the worst thing that could happen. A Convention would be a complete rewrite changing every tenant to the whims of the popular culture.

No Kut the constitution is not inspired of God but the framers were very wise. In their wisdom they gave us an intentionally flawed document, but also the means to amend it. They intentionally left it up to the states in the same way they intentionally instituted the electoral college, so that the population centers could not control either.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Will this help?

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

— Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.​

I found that (again) at Notable Quotes, which has a few others that may be of some assistance.

Blessings,
Bill

Hi All!

I am having an email discussion with a liberal relative and the "flexible, fluid, dynamic" Constitution concept came up. The following is a small part of the conversation.

"I see the Constitution as flexible, fluid, dynamic, able to not only inform us, but also to adjust as time, society, and thinking progresses. This applies to the amendments as well, including the 12th. The country has advanced more than our forefathers could ever have imagined."

"The system is now not working, so that every person's vote counts. Why should people vote, if their vote doesn't count?"

"We need to go forward and be a democracy that is inclusive. If the Constitution doesn't grow and keep up with the citizens' views on equality and the present, it is nothing more than an old sheet of paper."

What I am looking for is some good points to ask this relative that will help her question this philosophy. I don't want to attack her or put her on the defense because I do appreciate her taking the time to discuss her views. I need a polite way to help her rethink her position. She could very well shut down if pressed too hard and I really value our relationship so, I don't want to place it in jeopardy. And if the conversation appears to take a turn for the worse, I will gladly drop the subject before damage can be done.

Does anyone have any good points or questions I can ask?