The US Constitution Should Be a Living Document

I fully welcome my opponent's unconventionality, and shall follow suit. Since my opponent has not justified his framework, not has he made positive arguments generally (as opposed to assertions), I am free to do the same. I will, in this round, present two arguments, each negating the resolution, based on two contrary assumptions (the first, that a constitution may have authority extended through time, and, the second, that a constitution cannot), such that, no matter what my opponent makes of the framework in which I am working, my conclusion is inevitable. Note that this is in direct opposition to my opponent’s unwarranted decree that “Con must argue that the Constitution should be a "dead" document to succeed” – I must only argue that it should not be a living document (which includes an utterly impotent, and, therefore, de facto nonexistent constitution). I do not challenge my opponent’s acceptance of “natural rights”, but the exact list of rights he is accepting must be clarified before discourse may be had. So that there exists no ambiguity, I will operate with the assumption that the primary right is the Right to Autonomy, which has corollaries: the Right to Property and the Right to Self-Ownership. The Right to Autonomy states, generally, that each man has the right to exercise their own free will; the Right to Property that each man has the right to act exclusively over unclaimed material or material within his domain (this right also establishes the right to domain); the Right to Self-Ownership that each man must be treated as property of only themselves (unless they sign themselves into slavery), which, as explained, implies that they have exclusive control over their own person. If my opponent wishes to challenge any of these rights, I will present their justifications. The way my case is constructed means that, if my opponent cannot show that the Constitution is not “dead”, then it does not and should not have authority. Therefore, many of my opponent’s arguments work towards my conclusion. To give the foundation of my argument, I present passages from Lysander Spooner’s No Treason/Constitution of No Authority. Quoting the noble man on why Constitutions bind only those who signed them, and only on the terms that they signed them under: “Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is: “We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their “posterity” to live under it. It does not say that their “posterity” will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc.” And on why those bound by it must have signed it of their own accords: “The laws holds, and reason declares, that if a written instrument is not signed, the presumption must be that the party to be bound by it, did not choose to sign it, or to bind himself by it. [...] Neither law nor reason requires or expects a man to agree to an instrument, until it is written; for until it is written, he cannot know its precise legal meaning. And when it is written, and he has had the opportunity to satisfy himself of its precise legal meaning, he is then expected to decide, and not before, whether he will agree to it or not. And if he do not THEN sign it, his reason is supposed to be, that he does not choose to enter into such a contract. The fact that the instrument was written for him to sign, or with the hope that he would sign it, goes for nothing. Where would be the end of fraud and litigation, if one party could bring into court a written instrument, without any signature, and claim to have it enforced, upon the ground that it was written for another man to sign? that this other man had promised to sign it? [...] The very judges, who profess to derive all their authority from the Constitution — from an instrument that nobody ever signed — would spurn any other instrument, not signed, that should be brought before them for adjudication. […] Moreover, a written instrument must, in law and reason, not only be signed, but must also be delivered to the party (or to some one for him), in whose favor it is made, before it can bind the party making it. The signing is of no effect, unless the instrument be also delivered. […] The Constitution was not only never signed by anybody, but it was never delivered by anybody, or to anybody's agent or attorney. It can therefore be of no more validity as a contract, then can any other instrument that was never signed or delivered.” [2] Prong the First: If a Constitution is to Have Authority, it Must Not Change This is obvious by the fact that a contract is binding only insofar as it was consented to, and that “progress”, no matter to what end, would obliterate the ability for the terms of a contract to be specified (and therefore it could not be agreed to – empty and tabula rasa contracts are not contracts). Prong the Second: If a Constitution Changes, and Therefore Has No Authority, it Must be Discarded My opponent’s arguments mostly reject the consistency of our Constitution, and, therefore, we move to this prong. This conclusion is clearly given when one accepts that an improper contract is not binding; therefore, my opponent has shown that a living Constitution would be impotent, and, therefore, neither practically nor morally desirable. In addition, my opponent must recognise the difference between holding that a specific Constitution, by definition enduring, should be living, and that morally bankrupt Constitutions should be destroyed and replaced by More Perfect ones, and, if such replacement is impossible, just destroyed. My opponent needs to justify why the first would have been morally superior for, for example, Rome.