In other words...it needs clarification as time goes on. It needs evolution to fit today's society. That's all I am saying.

Yeah but calling it living and evolving suggests more than that or at least it sounds like it does. I think there are people who think that it would be ok to suggest there is no need to bear arms today and thus we can just scratch that out of the document. Or people who think they have constitutional rights that are really nothing more than gross and wild interpretations of the constitution. Changes and/or clarifications to the document still must remain true to the core beliefs of the document. And any and all changes must be hard fought and heavily scrutinized. Likewise we need to insure that interpretations of the constitution are genuine credible interpretations and not just wild bastardizations.

I am not disagreeing with that. But I am stating (back to my 2nd amendment example) that the constitution in no way offered any interpretation as to the legality of a private citizen owning a bazooka. Clarification...evolution...living document. Far cry from wild bastardization.

e·volve

To develop gradually: to evolve a scheme.

To come forth gradually into being; develop; undergo evolution: The whole idea evolved from a casual remark.

Biology. to develop by a process of evolution to a different adaptive state or condition: The human species evolved from an ancestor that was probably arboreal

I'm a strict constructionist "however" I cannot deny that the constitution changes/evolves over time.

ok fine. Touche. It's evolving. But we still need to be careful that we're not abusing it into evolving.

The discepancy here is this...

IP is using "evolving" as pertaining to the document itslef...I'll concede that...

But what is NOT EVOLVING (But many people try to make it so) is the stuff that's ALREADY THERE!!!!...

The Bill of Rights hasn't changed in over 200 years...So the Bill of Rights does NOT evolves...

You can say the same about every individual Amendment UNTIL they get forcibly changed (which has only happened ONCE in the whole Constitution's existance)...

Does the Constitution AS A WHOLE evolve?...I'll grant you that...

But do the AMENDMENTS THEMSELVES evolve?...NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But that's what activists try to do...

They take an Amendment that's NEVER changed in over 200 years and RE-INTERPRET it make it say something other than it's original intent...

And THAT is disgusting...:

Take the 2nd Amendment...

What is considered "arms" is up for debate...and that's been going on for years...

But what is unconstitutional is when cities say there should be NO ARMS WHATSOEVER!...Not even on the ones that everybody AGREES would constitutes "arms"...

THAT is flagrant disemboweling of the Amendment itself...THAT is trying to make it "evolve"...:

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

But you also have to concede that some of those amendments made no assertion concerning, say, evolving technology. Reinterpretation is a necessity in some cases. Again, look at the second amendment.

Than you make AN AMENDMENT SAYING SO!!!!

You don't do it from a bench...:

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

I am not even going to start with that argument. Suffice to say that I am a believer in judicial interpretation. The judiciary is just as important as the other two branches and their job is to look at the constitution, the body of philosophy and legal code rising from it, and the current social paradigms and to utilize all these indicators to make informed judgments as to how the constitution applies in a very different society than the one it was written for.

Otherwise, we would have to scrap the whole damned thing every 75 or so years and start from scratch.

The judiciary should uphold the constitution and any interpretations should be credible interpretations. We can't just allow them to "see" stuff that isn't there. There's a fine line between interpreting and legislating from the bench and the latter is unacceptable.