Our founders wrote the United States Constitution with the intent that it would be the ultimate law of the land. Understanding that things could and would change, the founders established procedures by which the Constitution could be amended. The procedure is not simple. The intent was that the Constitution would not be amended to accommodate fads or whimsy but it would accommodate long term needs.
The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) believe that the intent of the founders should be minimized, yes even ignored. The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) understand that the Constitution and the principle of “rule of law’ do not support their ideas. In order to subtlety abandon the Constitution and the “rule of law” the Marxist/Progressives have claimed that the Constitution is a living document, meaning they can arbitrarily determine its meaning.
What is the Rule of Law?
Derived from internationally accepted standards, the World Justice Project’s definition of the rule of law is a system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:
The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.
The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.
Notice in the second requirement, that laws are clear, publicized, and stable. This would mean the Constitution is stable. To change the meaning of the Constitution the framers said it would have to be amended per the procedure in the Constitution and not by some judge proclaiming it be changed because the Constitution is a “living document.”
arbitrary - Legal Definition. adj. Determined or founded on individual discretion, especially when based on one's opinion, judgment, or prejudice, rather than on fixed rules, procedures, or law.
In the United States constitutional interpretation, the Living Constitution is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes.
Strict construction requires a judge to apply the text only as it is written. Once the court has a clear meaning of the text, no further investigation is required.
Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch will be asked if he will rule based on what the Constitution says, or will he apply some arbitrary interpretation because the Constitution is “living” and thus can mean whatever is politically correct or whatever the Marxist/Progressives would like it to say. It appears that Judge Gorsuch can read and believes that the Constitution means what it says. This is not “arbitrary” and the Marxist/Progressives will oppose Gorsuch because he believes in “rule of law.”