There is a very difficult procedure for amending the Constitution. It is made difficult purposely so that changes cannot be made by whim. Even then mistakes are made such as prohibition. The idea of banning a custom literally thousands of years old because of a side-effect shows the insanity of acting without thoroughly thinking it out.The real reason the Constitution isn't "living" is because it was so well done originally. If it was as described by the libs there would hardly be a single word left of the original.

From a conversation in an Econ class in the early 70's between Professor Marty Blinn and a kid named Hogan, avowed communist.

"Would you agree the Constitution is the foundation of the nation?"
"Yes."
"Do you live in a house?"
"No, apartment."
"Do you want the foundation of the apartment to be living and breathing, like living, breathing amoeba?"

Hogan dropped the class.

The only way progressives can further erode liberty and take additional power is to reinterpret the Constitution. If it is to be interpreted as written, and as letters during it's writing represent its meaning, then freedom is the name of the game.

Typical liberal BS! Most lawyers IMO look best with a neck tie in the form of a noose around their necks. The Constitution is Constant and the US is living and breathing because of it's consistency. There are provisions within it to make amendments but they are rightfully a high hurdle. Lawyers can't make a dime arguing if they have no one to argue against so it stands to reason there will be a never ending argument by these nit wits.

The left wing Dimo's are living in a Socialist Utopian fantasy. Their belief that any legal document especially the Constitution is a living thing is for their own orgasmic relief.

In my senior year in high school, 1963-64, the history class was POD, Problems of Democracy, which I doubt anything close to that has been taught for quite some time. I don't think a twelft grader today has a clue about what I am about to write. It was about our government and The Constitution, the reason it was constructed as it is and the purpose underlying the form and wording. At that time the two camps were known as 'strict constructionists' and 'loose constructionists', who were not as radical as the 'living-breathing' folks are today. The framers knew well the abuses of power a government could commit, and Britain's monarchy was relatively kept in check by Parliament as compared to the oligarchs of other countries. They wanted to make sure the Federal government could not consolodate power, either assumptively or presumptively, that would include the courts. Thus coequal branches, holding each other in check; all held in check by the words "We the people in order to form a more perfect Government etc.", the power lies with the people and not the legislative branch, not the executive branch, and not the judicial branch. Lately, the progressive movement has seduced the court into legislating from the bench, creating laws and rights outside the purview of their role in government and The Constitution, strictly unConstitutional. My resolve as a strict constructionist is now stronger considering the contortioning of the left to bring situational ethics into the discussion!

The constitution should only deal with basic human rights , and unless human nature changes, it shouldnt change.

A dream of the control freak left is for a majority of PC progressive (aka socialist) crotchety old jackasses in black cloaks to Supreme Court "legislate" via rulings our Constitution away into something less than the USA and more like the USSR.
Into something akin to what had become of the government in Atlas Shrugged or even far worse.
Should that twisted dream ever come to a full "politically correct" fruition, I fully expect people like Gulchers to be "politically corrected"~whatever that will come to be.

That is an outstanding article. It properly addresses the problems in our legal system today and how nothing we have is representative of the original government as set up.

I also love the differentiation the author makes between a Constitutionalist and a textualist and the nuanced - but extreme - differences between those two positions.

Basically, it sums up the facts that the Progressives have been on a program for the last 100 years or so to rewrite the "bible" in their own image. One reason I cannot believe the Bible has survived untouched. If in just 100 years they have taken a short clearly worded document and twisted it to their own ends, a huge book is almost guaranteed tainted. The only real solution is to be the Convention of States, and hope the deck does not get stacked.

The constitution today has been subjugated to the use of legal polemics and precedents in rulings that obliterate its intended meaning by those who wrote and approved it. The general populace is muddled in its thinking and it is nearly impossible to reason with them.

I don't agree with either side of this debate. Everyone is grinding their own ax. I see the constitution as a "framework." We use it to construct new laws and ideas that were unknown to the founders. It is not "fluid" and it is not "fixed." It is a place to start when we (courts, legislatures, etc.).decide to build a new part.

Is Ms. Filipovic says the Bill of Rights would not apply to local gov't under a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Is that true? I thought one of the Amendments made those limitations on gov't power apply to the states.