Living vs. Dead Constitution

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 56
  • Published : February 18, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
Unit 1 Essay (Living v. Dead Constitution)

The founders intended for the Constitution of the United States to be a document that would aid in protecting the rights of the American people while also developing a federal government. It is my opinion, Mr. President, that when choosing our next Supreme Court Justice that you choose a nominee that has a view of the United States Constitution as a “dead document” to protect what the founders worked hard to set in place. When reading the Bible, for example, we read the books in a literal sense. We are not taking what is said and misconstruing the information to form what suits our lifestyles and ideals best. The same should be done with the Constitution. It is dangerous to try to reform, replace, or realign the rights of the American people by taking out of context what is written in the Constitution. For example, Kelo v. New London, 545 US 469 - Supreme Court 2005, was a case in which the Supreme Court took the words “public use” used in the Constitution and distorted them to “public benefit” for economic development. The land was taken from the owner by the government and turned over to a private developer.1 This is not what the forefathers meant. The forefathers put this in place for the development of roads, schools, libraries, and other public facilities and not for private development that they believe will boost economic development. In summary, I believe it is in the best interest of the people of the United States of America that the nominee for Supreme Court Justice is one that supports the Constitution as a “dead document”. The Constitution has been protecting the citizens of the United States for over 200 years, and far be it from us to change what is not broke.

1. “Americapedia, Kelo v. New London (2005)” Bill of Rights Institute, 2013, http://my.billofrightsinstitute.org/page.aspx?pid=1124
tracking img