ok gents i have a paper due in my American politics class on Thursday and i have to do a debate on a political question.

Is the American Constitution a living document?

any advice you want to give me would be awesome. I need anything you can give me but basically i obviously need to argue that it is a living document. any help would be greatly appreciated!!

Thanks Guys

 

Is your prof a republican or a democrat or a libertarian. it makes a difference if the grade by what they want to hear.

 

Why can't you argue that it isn't a "living document"? Do some research on Justice Scalila (sp?). He just did an interview where he defended his belief that it isn't a living document. He's long been considered one of the greatest legal minds of our time.


Just a thought.

 

she is definitely the hard core feminist liberal type. but i have to write the paper that goes with my argument and im on the pro side...

 

It's not a living document. It stands as written. The only exception is properly ratified ammednments.

IMO, 'living document' is code for ignoring parts of the Constitution for political expediency. The most obvious example is those who would like to restrict 2nd ammendment rights, because "the founding fathers did not know that weapons technology would become what it is"

The living document crowd will orgasm over this quote : [...the Constitution is] "...like my old blue dress ... it just doesn't fit anymore." -- Ellen Tauscher (Democrat) - Califonia congresswoman

 

i have no idea where i am going to start haha. but please keep feeding me info..

 

I cant argue that is isint a living document because i am on the pro side of the argument

 

anyone have any suggestions or examples of how the constitution is a living document? i need a few good ones to stump the con side of the argument.

 

Examples are all around you. The crux of the 'living docment' crowd is that the founding fathers 'could not have anticpated (fill in the blank), therefore we need to 'adjust' the Constitution to fit these modern times.

The internet, for example. The founders could not have known about the internet when they wrote the first ammendment.

Or assault weapons when they wrote the 2nd.

Thinks of something modern and find out which ammendment could apply. The H bomb, etc....

 

dirt bike dave you are saving my rear on this paper. thank you very much

 

thats surprisingly makes alot of sense to me. thanks alot. i will be using that!!

 

i see where your coming from but how would the vagueness of the constitution be an argument for the pro side? you mean it is vague therefore the articles can be bent and tweaked a bit to benefit you? if that makes sense...

 

thank you very very much. i will most likely have more questions later on in my paper so keep your eye out for this.

again thanks alot, its greatly appreciated

 

Pfft.. This is a rediculous arguement. I hate to break it to you, but BOTH parties "believe" in a Living Document.

If a Democrat wants to make an Ammendment to the constitution and ban Slavery or something, they're Not listening to the demands of our Forefathers.

If a Republican wants to Ammend the Constitution to Ban Flag Burning, Abortion, or Gay Marriage, it's because "that's what the Forefather's supposedly "Meant" to say when they were writing it.."

Exactly which one of these Ammendments Don't you want??? (other than the 18th. )

http://www.superkids.com/aweb/pages/...n/amndmnts.htm

 

Constitution? Ammendment? I've never heard of such a thing.... THIS IS MADNESS!