The Constitution is and was meant to be a living document.
Vote Here
The voting period for this debate does not end.
| Started: | 6/25/2008 | Category: | Politics |
| Updated: | 5 months ago | Status: | Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 163 times | Debate No: | 4506 |
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (14)
 Pro  Con No I'll start off by pointing out that my opponent says that a living document changes with the times. However, this cannot be how the framers meant as a type of law system. Take this example: In the distant future, "freedom of speech" is defined as "you can say anything you want, as long as it is not criticizing the government". Now obviously, you can tell that the framers meant for a right to criticize the government. However, if this "changed with the times", the new times would take away that right. My opponent is correct, however; the Constitution is a living document - but not for the definition he gave. A "living document" is a document that can be changed , or amended in our case. This allows for the formation of new laws and the altering of old ones. But with the definition my opponent used, the Constitution is not living, because it was not meant to "change with the times". |
 |
|
Pro Con |
 |
|
Pro Con Extand all my p100 CHARACTERS 100 CHARACTERS 100 CHARACTERS 100 CHARACTERS 100 CHARACTERS 100 CHARACTERS |
 |
Loading voting charts...
Show people this debate by sending them this public link:
surfride: That still doesn't address my main point, which is that the term "living document" refers to the process of adding amendments, not interpreting it.
Of course the constitution is meant to change with the times. As the times change, so does people's desire for changes in laws, women's suffrage for example. The times demanded women's suffrage, and it was granted. The document changes, and the will of the people, which dictates what "the time" desires, is what changes the documet. Sorry again about the fake argument thing.
25 characters. 25 more characters.
Pretty childish.
25 characters