I say no. If they did they wouldn't have been concerned with religious freedom which it seems they were.

That said, though, they were big on "Do unto others, all men are equal, ect" morality. They obviously found excuses to deviate from those core beliefs much as some Christians today have no problem acting in a very un-Christ like fashion.

I dislike the notion that the constitution is a living evolving document. I think it needs to be viewed as slightly more tangible than that. Any attempted changes to the document should be hard won. It also shouldn't be overly open to interpretation. Words do mean something and we shouldn't allow such an important document to be manipulated any such way.

And just how many amendments came after the original ten?

17...

In over 210 years...

And one of them was purposely written to negate an earlier one...So 15 changes overall...

I'd hardly call that "evolving"...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

How can it be anything but evolving? And a negation does not discount the change that occurred and had to be negated. And also, consider the vast amount of court documentation and political/legal philosophy that has advanced over the course of our country's history based just on the Constitution.

If you don't think that constitutional law and the constitution itself are evolving, you are simply fooling yourself or not being honest. Which is it?

Additions are NOT the "evolving" at issue...

At issue is the way the EXISTING Amendments are interpreted...

Something's written in 1791...

For over 200 years, it mean what it says...

Then some moron shows up and says "Well this is what it means NOW!"...:

That's the "evolving" that's a load of crap...

Have you ever heard of the term "strict Constitutionalist"?...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

So, just as an example...do you think in the second amendment, the right to bear arms gave any interpretation as to the disposition of ownership of a sherman tank?

Evolving suggests that it's forever in a state of changing. Our constitution shouldn't be viewed in that matter. Any and all changes are serious business. It is not continuously living and evolving. It is a document that can be changed but should only be changed when absolutely necessary and after great consideration. That's not "living and evolving." It should not be viewed as an overly adaptable document that can simply be changed because the times are changing. If it was genuinely "living and evolving" then it would be a meaningless piece of paper that might mean one thing today and something altogether different tomorrow. "Living and evolving" is far too loose of a description for our constitution and I'm disgusted by the way in which that phrase is often thrown around in reference to it.

The Constitution doesn't not get specific as to what constitues "arms", so that should be up to discretion...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

No it doesn't.

I don't see why not. Our society is in a constant state of evolution.

Well, take that matter up with the 17 changes that have occurred...you know, like the one's giving equality to all and giving you the right to vote as a woman...

That is the very definition of evolving...changing. Doesn't matter if it happens overnight or over centuries...a change is still an evolution.

Then why is it so intentionally vague?

It already does...thus, slaves are now free and you have the right to vote. Alcohol was illegal one decade and legal the next...etc, etc. Evolving doesn't mean it changes willy nilly, but that it changes due to need. You can take issue with the word evolving all you wish, but that is exactly what the constitution does and is given the ability to do by its own decree.


I am not concerned with your "feelings" about a reality. The constitution evolves and you can be disgusted by that all you wish. It's your right. Doesn't change the fact that evolves all the same.