Or calling the Constitution a ‘living document’
I continue to hear those from the left trying to argue that the Constitution is ‘a living document that needs to be reinterpreted with the changing time’ or some other strange nonsense. This I have been starting to call a rubber ruler argument. Why a rubber ruler? Well, considering that:
- rubber stretches
- rulers are primarily made from unyielding (non-stretchable) materials
- unyielding/non-stretchable materials give a standard with which you can have continuous accuracy
If you consider at least these 3 things, then you get the idea that without a standard of measure you won’t have consistency.
That’s not to say things change with time, and that the Constitution shouldn’t be changed. Personally could do better without the 16th & 17th and a rewritten 14th. BUT as a 223 year old contract , it should be changed through the proper channels laid out within it, namely Article 5. The Framers were smart enough to include such a process, but as such did not want it to be an easy one. If it was easy, it could lead to willy-nilly changes and onto a destructive course of events.