A "Living" Constitution?

We were not supposed to have a fucking 'living' constitution.  Laws and their meaning don't change with time.  It is the job of our judges to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench.  The law is also not meant to be flexible, it is meant to be strict and have specific meanings.  We need judges who will follow the textual meaning of the constitution and give us rulings based on what the law SAYS, not what they think it should say.

To quote the Massachusetts state constitution: 

"In the government of this Commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws, and not of men."

This gets right to the heart of the debate.  Should the courts be 'legislating from the bench?'  Should their job be to make up the laws as they go along?

OR, should the job of the judiciary be to *INTERPRET* the laws that were enacted by our legislators?  Clearly, if we do not want to have a nation of men rather than a nation of laws, it would require that we have judges on the bench who recognize this, for if we don't have judges who recognize that their job is merely to *interpret* the constitution (as opposed to legislating from the bench), you would no longer have a nation of *laws* and you would have a nation of *men.* 

Some call those who legislate from the bench judicial activists, or 'activist judges.'  For the reasons I have outlined above, I think it is important that we ensure only strict constructionist judges who will faithfully and accurately interpret the meaning of the constitution get the nomination.  The judiciary was not meant to be able to write laws, we were supposed to have a divided government in which the legislative branch of government writes the laws, the executive signs them, and the courts interpret them.  We are supposed to have three branches of government to help limit the powers of government, and judicial activism represents a departure from and a threat to our Republican form of government as we know it.

Liberal Moron back. I was wrong, it was Federalist Paper 84.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

This is implied there are liberties granted best when not enumerated as enumerating them already sets a limit on their scope. It's a craft argument, but what it means is there exists a flexibility in the constitution because the constitution bullet points out what is and what is not a right, that takes away rights, as seen in 4th Amendment arguments by Taft.

Taft didn't consider this argument, he just said -- "Oh wait, Cars don't count as persons or houses therefore 4th doesn't apply, don't want to be a LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGE!"