It is a constant argument, generally between the liberals and the conservatives, as to weather this U.S. Constitution is a living documents, whose meaning is open to interpretation through the filter of changing culture and societal mores, or if it has a fixed and unchanging meaning imparted by the founders. The answer in my opinion is, ‘yes.’

Now of course that sounds like a cop-out, the sort of answer a politician might give in order to not offend anyone and to be on the winning side, regardless of the evidence, facts, and philosophy. However, this is not my intention and my answer is in no way facetious.

I think that without a doubt that there are elements of the Constitution that are fixed in their meanings and not subject to a re-interpretation due to cultural shifts over the last two hundred years. For example look at Section 5, article 4 of the constitution.

 “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”

Here it is clear that The House and The Senate cannot adjourn without the other body also adjourning. It is a clear and direct statement of power and responsibility, or another example, Section 7 article 1.

“All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…”

On the other hand there are elements of the constitution where the meaning is not so plainly dictated, ook at the 9^th amendment.

 “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

So this amendment seems to be telling us that simply because there is a listing of rights, the previous 8 amendments, we should not assume that the list is exhaustive and that other unnamed right also exists, but what are those rights? More to the point are the rights referred to in the 9^th amendment just the rights as the founders understood them circa Dec 15 1791? If we can imagine something we might view as a right here in the 21^st century, that would have been unimaginable to Madison and company in 1791, does that right exist through the 9^th amendment or is it an invalid concept because Madison and company would have not considered such a thing?

For example, elective surgery might have been beyond comprehension in 1791, an era that if you were having surgery it would have been a life-threatening event performed without anesthesia. It might very well have been unthinkable that people would willingly subject themselves to such treatments for reason of vanity alone. So, if Madison and company can’t conceive it as a right, does that mean it is not a right today in 2012? Or do we have a right to alter, snip, cut, ink, and deform out bodies to our own contentedness?

I would say yes we do have that right. That simply because it was not conceived of as a right in 1791 doesn’t mean it can’t be conceived of as one in 2012. I reject the idea that the pool of rights is fixed to a set limited either by direct enumeration, for those who ignore the 9^th amendment, or by the quirk of historical setting.

So yes the Constitution is a fixed document, with clear limits and delineation of our Federal Governments powers and privileges, and also it is a living document that must be view through the current cultural complex.

Yes another reason why politically, I have no home.