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

C1: Legal analysis A2: 1. The biggest error in this argument is the last sentence since it would necessarily mean that the constitution cannot be "interpreted." The Constitution cannot interpret itself (its not ‘living' in the literal sense) and will therefore require interpretation whether we are to be strict constructionists or ‘living document' advocates. If judges are not the ones who are charged with doing the interpreting, that necessarily means that the president and congress have ubiquitous authority to do so, which leads to abuse as was the case prior to Marbury v Madison. Even if there are judicial activists, they will always be better than political activists since they have some semblance of legal and judicial authority. A2: 2. a) Turn: Interpretation by judges is the best way to ensure that people have rights that are not expressly written into the constitution, which is what the 9th Amendment tries to protect. Otherwise Congress and the President would be able to infringe on these rights since the constitution is vague. Thus, the constitution must be interpreted by the Supreme Court and its inferiors b) The statement "since it would place all interpretive power within the hands of the judicial branch" is not a warrant for "a living document interpretation makes these 2 amendments null and void." Who else would interpret the amendments, the ninth being rather vague and therefore in need of interpretation, which the court did in Griswold v Connecticut. It certainly was not the intent of the founders that the constitution be interpreted by the executive and legislative branches A2: 3. This is just not true. There are checks on the judicial branch. (1) The president nominates federal and Supreme Court judges. (2) The Senate approves judges. (3) Congress can investigate wrongdoing. (4) Congress can impeach judges. (5) Congress can overturn decisions with constitutional amendments. (6) Congress has the authority to create lower courts. (7) Congress can alter the size of the Supreme Court A2: 4. This is just blatant contradiction. If the constitution established federal courts like the Supreme Court, if not to interpret the constitution then what was its task? The fact that the Supreme Court held the Marbury case is evidence that it was the conventional wisdom that the court would settle disputes and interpret the constitution. The question was whether the court had ANY AUTHORITY to enforce its rulings, which the constitution did not establish. The Court was trying to protect the constitution, but that could only happened if it had the ability to make binding decisions, and that is only possible with judicial review. The third article grants that the High Court is the last appellate court which gives reason to think that it is the ruling on authority on matters of constitution since the appeals are questions of (un)constitutional interpretation A2: 5. Contradiction. This contradicts your Separation of Powers argument. The reason the founders gave this power to Congress and to the states was a check on the court, which is not something I have to oppose as a person who thinks the constitution is living. Also, Turn: This proves the constitution is a living document, since the founders provided a mechanism by which the constitution can be changed to go with the times (slavery being an example). If the constitution were dead in time, there would be no change mechanism. In fact, the court only has the authority to rule on what the constitution says at the time they make a decision. Thus, your point actually warrants the idea that the founders recognized that a living document was necessary, the court merely acts to interpret those gray areas A2: 6. This is answered by my arguments about how there are plenty of checks on the court. That is how tyranny is solved. Either way, TURN: Without an independent judiciary with the authority of judicial review, the fexecutive and legislative branches could deem decisions by the court null and void even if their actions were in contravention to the constitution. An independent judiciary is established IN ORDER TO make sure that others are not acting unconstitutionally (that's why judicial review was established) C2: A2: 1. If this were true then we would not have slavery. It does not follow that because most people believe and enact X, therefore X is not tyrannical. It may be the case that there is a tyranny of the majority, which is why a court is needed to bring it back to a constitutional issue instead of an opinion-based issue. Supermajoritarianism only works within the confines of the constitution, any gray areas necessarily must be interpreted by the court to prevent potential tyranny. Either way, legislators may act in contravention to the majority, so that your argument makes too many assumptions A2: 2. This does nothing to do away with tyranny of the majority since all you need is a majority within a state to enact tyrannical policies. The means by which these issues are settles is to take it through federal courts up to the supreme court. Otherwise states interpret the rights in the constitution, which is dangerous A2: 3. Neutral C3: Observation: If this falls, he gains no offense since his alternative fails to solve. Thus, even if all above arguments fail, and I win this, I win the round. However, if I win the above, and lose this, I still win the round since he assumes supermajoritarianism good in this argument. He has to win both. A2: A) Nonetheless, opnion does not overrule the constitution and that is why we need the courts to interpret it and shoot down unconstitutional mandates based on opinion. A2: B) This is just a flaw with the constitution then since the power is on the president and congress to nominate and confirm justices and judges. People elect the president and therefore have an indirect hand in the nomination process. Moreover, there is a progression of demographic diversity in courts. There is one African American on the court, there are none in the senate. A2: C) The House of Representatives is mostly by simple majorities. The Senate can overcome filibuster through reconciliation processes so that only 51 votes are needed. If it is bad that the court is simple majority, this argument is non-unique. Moreover, TURN: Simple Majority on a court is good, since if the standard were 7 of 9, or 9 of 9, nothing would be interpreted which means we would be in judicial limbo as to what is constitutional or not. CASE: 1. Pragmatism. If the constitution was not meant to be interpreted through the times then, necessarily, there would have to be massive amounts of amendment processes which just are not viable given our polarized politics. Thus, if the constitution was vague about something immoral or about something to do with rights, it would be extremely hard to amend it constantly. 2. Self-referential incoherence. My opponents position refutes itself since the claim "we should only adhere to what is in the constitution" refutes itself since strict-constructionism AND the claim that the constitution is not itself living is nowhere to be found in the constitution. 3. Interpretation. If the founders wanted the constitution to be frozen in time they would have made it explicitly clear that only amendments to the constitution would be the mechanism of INTERPRETATION. Since this is not found in the constitution, it gives a warrant for the claim that the constitution is living. 4. The framers provided various methods by which the Constitution and its laws could be modified as society grew and changed. That is why the United States Constitution is known as a "living constitution," one which can adapt and be flexible as necessary. There are three ways in which the Constitution is a "living" document: the formal amendment process; the informal amendment process; and custom, usage, and tradition." [1] [1] http://library.thinkquest.org...