The U.S. Constitution is a "living" document

I negate: The Constitution is a "living" document Alternative: Original Methodology This interpretation of the Constitution expounds on the notion of original intent. It argues that: 1) We need to evaluate the intent and meaning of the Constitution BUT 2) Evaluate the rules and limitations that would have guided or restrained the Framers C1: Legal Analysis 1. The phrase "Supreme Law of the Land" is used explicitly within the Constitution itself. In context of its usage and analyzing the rules limitation tells us that this phrase makes the Constitution as a legal document separate from the enactors and future legislators. The context of the word supreme implies that the Constitution is above and for the most part wholly separate from the political process itself. It is what guides the political and legal process and is thus not bound by the fickle interpretations of judges and legislators. 2. The 9th and 10th Amendment constrains the government from stepping outside its bounds in interpretation. Essentially the 9th Amendment ensures that the government's interpretation does not infringe on the enumeration of rights, and the 10th Amendment protects against Federal breach of State rights and individual rights. A living document interpretation essentially makes these 2 Amendments null and void since it would place all interpretative power within the hands of the judicial branch. 3. Separation of Powers. The Constitution in Article 1: Section 1, 8 and 9, the government is strictly constrained by the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Accepting the living document interpretation makes these sections of the Constitution null and void because it would place essentially all power within the hands of the Judicial Branch, since it would allow that branch to determine what rules applies to it, what rules apply to the other branches, and what rules apply to the people. 4. Power of the Judiciary. The Constitution heavily limited the power of the judiciary. Textually the original constitution outlined that Courts would be established and would be bound by the Constitution. This tells us that the living document interpretation is not the appropriate form of interpretation because it assumes that there is an arbiter on the situation, which would be the judiciary. But the judiciary since the beginning was constrained by the Constitution. It was only until Marbury vs. Madison that the Judiciary took the role of interpreter. But even in this legal precedent the notion of judicial review was one of reviewing the laws as they were, and not based on opinion and activism of the Court. 5. Amendment and Ratification Processes. The Constitution has clearly outlined a process for changing the Constitution – the Amendment process. Since the Framers knew changes would eventually have to take place, they created a process which gave power to the States, the people and Congress. This is a good divide of internal power to determine amending the Constitution. If the living document interpretation was indeed correct then the Framers would have laid the power of change to the judicial branch. 6. Purpose. The reason for the Constitution is to protect the populous against potential tyranny, soft or hard tyranny. Giving a branch of the government to determine how the Constitution ought to operate and how it ought to be enacted opens the floodgates for governmental tyranny. The purpose was to have a document that entrenched certain norms that could not be interpreted by the government, unless a supermajority and the US people wanted to change it. The Conmsitution offers both negative and positive rights for the US populous, something that needs to be a norm, not left up to simple judicial activism. Which leads to C2 C2: Supermajoritarianism Advantage The Constitution as a legal document of supermajoritarianism and "entrenchment of norms", offer immense benefits for the U.S. populous. So, my alternative doesnt simply offer normative proof for its desirability, but also consequential proof for its desirability. 1. Entrenching norms, through say the Constitution, forms a very strong bond of allegiance for those norms. The Constitution utilizes supermajoritarianism as the check against undesirable norms. This ensures that only norms which have heavy consensus are allowed to be entrenched. The benefit from this is that the notion of protection against tyranny is heavily entrenched within US society. Moreover, keeping the supermajoritarian process for the Constitution ensures that the Constitution is not skewed for political expediency at the expense of the general populous. 2. The Constitution itself was a product of supermajoritarianism. First, the constitutional convention had to be approved by the super-majority of States. Second, the Constitution itself had to be ratified by 9 out of the 13 colonies. Due to this fact, the Nationalist bloc conceded its majority hold and gave us Federalism. This shows that the supermajoritarian process prevents even tyranny of the majority. 3. As mentioned above, the amendment process is a supermajoritarian process. It is necessary that 3/4 of the State legislators ratify the Amendment, and then it must be approved by the supermajority of Congress. 3. Original Methods is necessary to preserve supermajoritarianism. A) The judicial branch is highly limited. In comparison, the Constitutional process involves legislators throughout the entire United States. This is important because the constitutional process involves the supermajority of people throughout the US, thus maximizing opinion. B) The demographic of justices are highly limited. The lot of justice are chosen from a narrow group of individuals - upper-middle to upper class, and white males who were lawyers who have worked up the judicial latter. The constitutional process involves an entire range of demographics and individuals. C) The judicial branch is simple majority. The constitutional process is supermjoritarian but the judicial system is by simple majority. In most cases today, the Supreme Court rules by a 5-4 decision. This system is way to open for abuse, whereas the constitutional process isnt. Thus, embracing the living document approach to the Constitution hands ultimate power to a branch of government that wasnt designed to wield such power and which is a much less than a diverse system. Accepting judicial activism destroys the notion of supermajoritarianism which was specifically designed to be the main process for determining constitutionality. As such, it is an implied imperative that the judicial branch simply follows an originialist method form of interpretation.