>muh living document Why do liberals think this?

>>133232204

Article V of the US constitution:

>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.

>>133232612
>he doesn't understand that amendments and originalism are not mutually exclusive
wew lad, nice pasta

>>133232204
Because Sharts are incapable to understand that the world may have changed in the last 200 years and that anti-English and cuckstain memes from 1783 may not apply anymore

>Niggers are people
>this I know
>Rabbi Yeshua told me so

>>133233282

What's not to understand - the framers of the constitution included a clause allowing for its amendment in future, ipso facto it is a 'living document' and was intended to be one from the outset.

Now, the argument abour whether interpretation of the constitution evolve is a different subject. The truth of the matter is that originalism still relies on a contemporary judge or court making an interpretation of the constitution. In that regard they're not really any different from a judge making what you might call a 'living' interpretation - both are trying to apply meaning to a text which somebody else wrote. There is no such thing as a 'correct' interpretation.

>>133232204
The alternative strict interpretation, or even reading in the framers' intent to the document, goes against modern liberals' core values.

>>133234774
That isn't what is meant by "living document" in this context. What is meant is that the language should be interpreted to carry meaning beyond what was intended, taking a statement or clause written to apply to one set of circumstances and extract an overarching morality or ideology and then apply that to a new set of circumstances. Basically, imagining that the constitution provides rights or makes judgments about things which it very clearly does not and was not ever intended to cover.

>>133235219

That presupposes that you can interpret it strictly, or that the framers' intent can be properly understood (leaving aside the problem that they may not have all had the same intent). In the end, the constitution is silent on how it should be interpreted, so any opinion on how that should be done is just that - an opinion.

>>133235219
For instance, 3/5 clause, memeworthy for sure, although it was only meant to provide proportional representation in the house for the south.
But there is an underlying implication that goes with the clause, and proves whitey raycis. All you have to do is look at surrounding era legislation. The first ever immigration act defined what the framers intended the national genetic makeup to be, the Naturalization Act of 1790. Non-whites were not allowed to gain citizenship, apart from a few freed mulattos in the south. Non-whites were never supposed to be a substantial constituent body in American politics. Exclusionary immigration acts glcontinue to be in effect through the entire 19th century, despite the south being subjugated after the war of northern aggression.
I personally argue this is the main reason an elastic interpretation is used to read in modern context to the constitution: reading in the constitution era's vision of what america was meant to be doesn't jive with the multicult agenda

>>133232204
>muh living document
>Why do liberals think this?

Because 'interpreting' a law is easier than going against the will of the People by outright changing it.

It's how the Left works:
Ignore the black and white text of the Law in favor of feelings.

Tldr; libs love feelings

>>133232204

Because of Marbury v Madison, when the SCrOTUS unconstitutionally invented a power for itself.

American jurisprudence has been tainted since basically the beginning.

Because they want a humanist theocracy

>
"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa," says Ginsburg, whom President Clinton nominated to the court in 1993. "That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. … It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/ginsburg-likes-s-africa-as-model-for-egypt/

>>133232204
>Why do liberals think this?
Don't worry, they can barely keep a House Majority let only have the competence to make an amendment happen.
If overnight you had Dems take the WH, House and Senate while at the same time 90% of Americans wanted the 2nd Amendment changed, they wouldn't be able to pull it off.
They truly do suck.