The left has succeeded in positioning their “living Constitution” theory – which holds that the meaning of Constitutional text is “fluid” (and therefore useless) – as a valid “theory of law.”
Amazing, when you think about it…
The “living Constitution” theory is a “legal philosophy” which states that we cannot hold our government to any HARD-STOP limits because the text of the Constitution on which we’d rely to do that has NO definitive meaning.
The INTENT of the MAKERS – the expressed, implied or discernible intent of the parties ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT is the only valid interpretation of any contract in dispute.
The reason for that is clear: At some point in time, these parties were in agreement – hence, the contract presently in dispute. The meanings of the text on which those parties AGREED at the time they agreed on them MUST govern the process of adjudicating a present dispute if any party is to be held to any contract at all.
The alternative would clearly be a mess were it applied to civil cases. It would make it nearly impossible to hold anyone to a contractual obligation.
Applied to Constitutional questions, the effect has been the same: It prevents the people from holding their government to any solid, hard-stop limits. And that’s the real INTENT of the “living Constitution theory.”
In nominating Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump has nominated a jurist who recognizes the INTENT of the CONSTITUTION’S MAKERS (that includes not only the framers but all who ratified it – the STATES) as the valid interpretation of this all-important contract.