I agree with the definition of 'living' as open to amendment, and not interpretation. In the tech industry, a 'living' document is one that is kept up to date to reflect the changes in the project, not a static document that is reinterpreted at a later time.
As you point out, the Constitution IS a living document, because of the amendment process. But, I think that those using the term 'living document' are misusing the term. I believe what they really mean to say is that it is a framework. The true power of the Constitution is that it is NOT a strict set of laws, but rather a framework that was designed for and demands interpretation. That is it's strength; it's ability to adapt to changing times without losing the original intent - limiting the power of government.
So, the real controversy is not whether the Constitution is living or not, but the degree and method of interpretation. Scalia knows this, but employs Coulterisms to make the problem seem different than it really is. Classic inflammatory tactics.
I can see why Scalia and Cheney are such good friends. Calling people 'idiots' because they don't agree with his interpretation philosophy is unbecoming of a Supreme Court justice. But, like with the recent Cheney incidents, it does put a bright shining light on his personality: prickly, smug, occasionally clever, and very narrow. |
