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.

>>23

I use the Federalist Papers because all scholars and even the lay person go to them to learn the foundations of the constitution. These papers written mainly by Hamilton and Madison detail an account for why the constitution will work.

On the issue of a "Living Constitution," Federalist 84 by Hamilton says that if you set the Bill of Rights into stone, that is DANGEROUS as he mentions because then by enumerating rights, you already set limitations on them thereby compromising the mission of establishing universal and inaliable rights.

I use the example of Justice Taft in which Taft did not consider the automobile a "persons" or a household and thereby justified the opinion that the automobile can be subject to warrantless searches and seizures (something the 4th Amendment protects citizens against).

I want to argue that a living consitution should be accepted because of this, and that Judges might grant liscense to limitations on the interpretation, such as our friend Taft and automotives being excempt from 4th Amendment procedures of officers.

Technology will radically change, and with those changes the society will change in accordance with technological progression. Because of this, I find there to be validity in a living constitution, although even a "Liberal Moron" that there may be grievances that have merit due to judges extending their authority without proper prejudice.