An argument made is that the amendment process is difficult and cumbersome, which is a good thing as we would not want an easy process. However, since the process is difficult, we have opted to rely on the court system to “interpret” the constitution. “What did the original writers mean?”  The problem is that interpretation is too open to one’s philosophy, one’s biases, and one’s belief system. A constructionist interprets the Constitution as it is written, not as he wished it had been written. Those who believe in a “living constitution” believe that the opinion of the Supreme Court is more important than what the Constitution actually says.

     The living document philosophy is flawed, allowing personal biases and interests to weave into our constitutional system, thereby, allowing a tendency to drift towards justifying oppression on others. The courts have a history of making decisions that violate the will of the people, which is in stark contrast to “We the people”. “…the will of the majority shall prevail.” (Washington). “The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society….” (Jefferson).

     We need to rely on the Constitution in a changing world but we must also protect the foundational principles and national doctrines contained within. Therefore, we must accept the established amendment process as well as pushing our legislators to pass laws as the founding fathers intended. The Constitution works perfectly when the interpreter is fixed on our Creator – the same one that is mentioned in our Declaration of Independence that endowed us with certain unalienable Rights. His Word is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The Word of God is living, but it will also never change.