The Constiution of the United States should be interpreted as a living document, not as a fixed one.

Since you stated our definitions won't contradict, I'll use my definition to start. A fixed document is one where the wording cannot be changed through any means but by the way the document states. In the comments page, when I questioned my opponent about his definitions, he stated when referring to our definitions, "If you want to provide a definition of fixed document, that would be good. I'm thinking something along the lines of what you are thinking that it should be that the founding fathers intent should be allowed through to a point,". The Founding Fathers intent to allowed through, TO A POINT. I believe these three words could decide the debate. What is my opponent suggesting? He is suggesting that if the Founding Father's intent does not meet the needs of the people, the Constitution should be allowed to conform to meet those needs. It sounds good, but this argument is fundamentally flawed. Who decides the needs of the people? Who decides if the Constitution meets those needs? The Supreme Court cannot be allowed to decide this, for they cannot amend the Constitution and have to uphold the document as a whole, no matter what it says. Congress cannot, for they don't interpret the Constitution, they can only change it. The Executive branch can't decide the needs of the people, nor can it decide if the Constitution meets the needs of America, its job is defend the Constitution and make sure all programs are run effectively. This fundamental flaw is a major issue that Pro has to solve. Please, in your next speech, give me your solution to who decides the needs of the people, and who decides if the Constitution meets those needs. Now on to my contentions: Contention 1: The definition of a Fixed Document and a Living Document In my opening speech, I was allowed to give my definitions, and in my opponent's second speech, he said our definitions wouldn't contradict. My definition was as follows: A fixed document is one where the wording cannot be changed through any means but by the way the document states. My definition for a living document was as follows: A living document is one that constantly evolves and shifts according to society and its needs. The Constitution fulfils this definition as a Fixed Document. It cannot change by any means except but what states is the way to change its wording. The Constitution meets this definition, for it can change its wording through an amendment. Article V of the U. S. Constitution states, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,". Congress does not interpret the Constitution and, if they decide to do so on their own extra constitutional accord, decide to try to interpret the needs of the people and amend the Constitution to fit what they deem as needs and wants, they could inherently push their own agenda. Look to Amendment 27. This allows Congress to set their own paycheck. Who voted on this amendment? Congress did, and they are allowed to fit their 'needs' in a higher paycheck if they so deem right. The Constitution, if interpreted as a fixed document, should not allow Congress to set their own paycheck, for that could disrupt a check on Congress. Would the Founding Father's want Congress to set their own paycheck and thus allow Congressmen to have a slight advantage of the rest of the population of the U. S. ? No, Amendment 27 is an example of the Constitution being interpreted loosely in accordance to what Congress said, and it met a so called 'need' and a 'want' for Congressmen. Do Congressmen constitute for all of society, and thus meet the definition of a Living Document? No, and Amendment 27 is an example of the Constitution being used as a fixed document, and Congressmen take advantage of this fact. But the Constitution also meets the definition of a Living Document. Through Article V of the Constitution, a fixed document, at times, is allowed to be a Living document through the amendment process. Unfortunately for my opponents case, the Constitution cannot be interpreted as a Living Document unless Pro concedes that the Constitution is a fixed document, and thus proving my Contention. . http://www.usconstitution.net... Contention 2: Relevance Today Through the Amendment Process, the Constitution is allowed to be changed to fit society's needs and wants. Yes, its true that the Founding Father's could not predict society's changes, but that's why Article V was written, so that the Constitution COULD change to meet society's needs and wants. In conclusion, Con wins this debate. I succeed in proving that the Constitution meets both definitions of a Living and a Fixed Document. Unfortunately for Pros case, he cannot prove that the Constitution meets the definition of a Living Document unless he concedes that the Constitution is a Fixed Document. Thus, I urge voters to realize this fact, and agree that the Constitution is first a Fixed Document, then a Living Document.