What it means is that a constitution must not be ultra specific.
Like it saying a right to free speech instead of speech by word of mouth or a printing press.
The right to bear arms instead of the right to bear flintlock muskets and bladed weapons.
It's provisions cover future technological developments and thus there is no need to update those specific sections, for the most part.
A constitution that is not grounded, is nothing at all.
If it is so flexible, who is to decide when and where that flexibility it can apply?
Can free speech be clamped down on because a person in power thinks society shouldn't have that wide option?
I do not think you should enable someone to smudge your contractual assets and you get nothing in return.
It's a bad deal for you and a good deal for them.
The First Amendment says both freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Other means of mass communication did not exist, and in a correct form of judicial interpretation, the freedoms of press and speech have been expanded to both individuals being represented by the corporations they've invested in, and by freedoms of the various electronics media. For the most part.
That wonderful judicial activism and Living Document **** kept Eugene Debb in jail for years, for the heinous crime of publicly opposing Wilson's interventionist war in Europe.
Great stuff, that Living Document ****, when you want to impose authoritarian rule. For some reason, Living Document **** doesn't apply when people want to protect their freedoms.
LDS (sorry, not referring to the Mormons here) is most dramatically applied when people want to babble about how the "Founders" didn't know about laser sighted fully autoomatic "assault" rifles. NO, oh no! THEN the LDS is about restricting freedoms. Can't have law abiding citizens having them there modern weapons.
Other LDS allowed the creation of the FHA. Which led to the CRA, which led to CRA II, eventually the busted mortgage crisis of 2008.
Can someone cite, in their Living Document, where the Messiah derives the authority to intervene in bank foreclosures? Where people who pay their mortgage and their taxes are required to pay more taxes so people who won't pay their mortgages get to keep a house they haven't paid for?
Cite the clause of this magical Living Document that says the government can take dollars from people who have decided they didn't want their dollars going to General Motors and then giving those dollars to GM anyway?
Anyone REALLY beleive that Hamilton or Madison or anyone living in that era would accept the notion that the government should have the power to tax the people to prevent a private company from going bankrupt? No, those people NEVER believed that, and thus this whole Living Document **** is just that, the watery ploppings of a flatuent cow that never saw the shores of the real America.
