The U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as a living document.

The Constitution should be interpreted as a living document for two reasons: 1) the Constitution was written deliberately vague enough to change over time, and 2) interpreting the Constitution as a living document has resulted in tremendous progress for our country.1. The Constitution was designed specifically to be a living document Critics of the living Constitution often suggest that the original intent or meaning of specific language in the Constitution should govern its legal application unless and until any constitutional amendments are passed to change it. The profound irony of this approach to constitutional interpretation, however, is that it flunks its own test; the vast weight of historical evidence suggests that the Framers of the Constitution originally intended the meaning of the Constitution to change over time. A. The brevity of the document At the time of its ratification in 1788, the Constitution was only 4500 words long and fit on four (admittedly large) pages. By contrast, Congressional legislation today is typically hundreds of pages long, and usually begins with a lengthy list of terms and definitions to clarify the precise meaning of its language. If the framers of the Constitution really intended the Constitution to define the precise scope of the entire federal government and the nature of core individual rights for all of perpetuity, then one would have expected the body of the constitution to be significantly larger. Of course, attempting to draft and subsequently ratify such a detailed Constitution would have proven to be an impossible task. A specific example from the Constitution illustrates this point. In defining the Congress’ ability to “carry into execution” its enumerated powers under Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, the Framers made an editorial decision to grant Congress a wide-ranging power to pass “all laws . . . necessary and proper” for that purpose. As James Madison explained in Federalist Paper # 44, this decision was made largely for the sake of convenience: Had the convention attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect; the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the Constitution relates; accommodated too not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce.[1] This, of course, was not the framer's intent. Aside from the practical obstacles in actually drafting such a document, the Framers also wanted to keep the Constitution accessible to Americans of all backgrounds. In other words, if the Framers didn’t intend for the Constitution to be a living document, we wouldn’t have a Constitution small enough to fit in our pocket. B. The ambiguity of its language Even more convincing evidence for the idea of a Living Constitution, however, lies in the ambiguity of its actual language. Phrases like “general Welfare,” “due process of law,” and “free speech” are some of the most important concepts at the heart of our democracy, but their actual meaning is left completely unresolved by the naked text of the Constitution. This ambiguity was deliberate. For one thing, the delegates present at the 1787 Philadelphia Convention disagreed vigorously amongst themselves about the meaning of certain language, and keeping the document as vague as possible increased the likelihood of its ratification from the 13 states. Less cynically, however, was the fact that the Framers simply wanted to ensure that the Constitution had the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. When the Constitutional Convention’s Committee of Detail met together to write the first draft of the Constitution, for example, framer Edmund Randolph advised his fellow Committee members “to insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events.” [2] C. The intent of its Framers Like Randolph and Madison, other framers have endorsed the idea of a Living Constitution. In Federalist Paper # 34, Alexander Hamilton essentially criticized an "originalist understanding" of federal power: Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. [3] Aside from explicit quotations, we may also infer the framer’s support for a living Constitution by the circumstances surrounding their deliberations in Philadelphia. For example, if the framers really wished for their intentions to control future interpretations of the Constitution’s text, one would expect them to have kept a detailed recording of their deliberations in Philadelphia, just like Congress compiles a “legislative history” to guide future interpretation of the statutes they pass. The framers, however, declined to keep an official record of their deliberations in Philadelphia, and kept their proceedings secret from the public. This way, they ensured that future generations would not be trapped under the weight of their "original intent."2. A Living Constitution has made us a freer and more just countryPerhaps the best argument in favor of a Living Constitution is the simple fact that it has made our country better. The legal reasoning used in the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education demonstrates this convincingly.After hearing oral arguments, one Justice noted that if the case had been decided then, "the vote would have been five to four in favor of the constitutionality of segregation in the public schools." [4] Despite unanimous disgust with the practice of segregation, five of the nine Justices didn't believe it was unconstitutional under an original intent understanding of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, because even Northern schools were racially segregated when the Amendment was passed in 1868. One Justice's law clerk concluded that "it is impossible to conclude that the 39th Congress intended that segregation be abolished; impossible also to conclude that they foresaw it might be, under the language they were adopting.” [4]Fortunately for this nation, the five waivering Justices eventually came to their senses and discarded the "original" understanding of the 14th Amendment as irrelevant. Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Chief Justice Earl Warren observed the following:In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.[5]Desegregation via Brown is only one of the many indispensable products of a Living Constitution. Consider how the execution of juveniles or mentally retarded inmates is now considered "cruel and unusual punishment" under the 8th Amendment's "evolving standards of decency." Consider also the constitutional right to privacy, the right to interracial marriage, or the right to be free from warrantless searches - all of which were once unthinkable during earlier eras.As our country continues to change for the better, so should the meaning of our Constitution.[1] http://www.constitution.org...[2] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu...[3] http://www.constitution.org...[4] http://www.neh.gov...[5] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...