visagrunt wrote:
The United States Constitution was a creature of its time--statutes in the 18th century did not contain definitions of terms, that was a much, much later aspect of legislative drafting, that became part of the ongoing tug-of-war between the two law making branches of government.
In my view, constitutional documents must be flexible enough to speak for all time. They cannot be dispensed with, they cannot be readily repealed, and they are intentionally difficult to amend. That creates a very real risk of stagnation.
The principle of law is that all statute speaks in the present tense. However, no drafters, no matter how gifted, can predict the circumstances to which their statutes will be applied over the centuries. An attempt to bind things rigidly for all time creates the very real risk that the only potential response is to dispose of it. Many constitutions have fallen into desuetude for precisely this reason.
Conservatives, almost by definition, prefer little or no change in constitutional arrangements, preferring the status quo or--better yet--the status quo ante over innovation. For this reason, conservatives almost always wind up on the wrong side of history. Human societies change over time. We make progress and we change our societies to accommodate that progress. We innovate, and our societies change as innovation takes hold.
Constitutions like those of the United States, Canada and Australia, and especially the special case of the United Kingdom, survive because of their flexibility. It is a precious feature of these nations, and it should not be lightly criticized.
Sadly, with recent rulings from the Supreme Court, the U.S. Constitution may be losing its flexibility.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
16 Feb 2014, 8:40 pm
