Constitution: Static or Living and in it means?? I was reading "The Original Constitution", by Robert G. Natelson. The work assesses Constitution and Bill of Rights in light of eighteenth-century law, minutes from the Confederation Congress, the original Articles of Confederation, Federalist papers (FWIW, the Federalists were those supporting the ratification of the Constitution), the Anti-Federalists, the legislative discussions with North Carolina, New York, Rhode Island, etc., that were holding out on ratification, personal papers of those that were there and engaged in the process. I find the representations made to the respective legislatures regarding the meaning attributed to sections of the Constitution by Founders very interesting. Especially, since the ratification by each legislature was in great part due to these representations. I have a ways to go in the book, but it appears the Constitution and Bill or Rights that were ratified differ from where we are now with their meaning. So, I’d like to look at this a few of different ways. 1) Quotes and citations of period work the author missed that would lend a different view or meaning. 2) The Constitution has a mechanism for allowing change, so does a court have the power to expand that meaning beyond the original intent? 3) The separation of powers vests the three branches with distinct powers, so can one branch usurp the powers of the others? With respect to number 2 and 3, I would argue no. The courts were intended to interpret law and not make it. The courts are bound to interpreting the law’s meaning based on the Record. By definition, only the legislature legislates and only they can create or change “law”. The Executive can only agree (approve) or reject (veto) a law. The Executive is bound to enforce with equal vigor the laws it likes and dislikes. This brings me to my main interest. Are the Constitution and Bill of Rights living documents? Can the Supreme Court change the meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to make it PC or fit into the modern world? Given the Courts are not specified in the Constitution as a mechanism or branch that can amend either document, I find it unlikely the founders would have intended and hand full of life long appointed persons to have the ability to amend either document by “interpretation”. I’ll close with a life experience: In the 70s, I can remember my oldest brother arguing with my dad about a bar exam question. The gist of it was my brother argued "something" wasn't right, as in justice. My dad, who had been an attorney for decades, said something like: "The law is what it is. The law is a set of rules for resolving disputes. Only with a firm understanding and agreement on the rules (laws) can people go into a courtroom and know where they stand. If the law says the moon is made of green cheese, you argue fervently its green cheese. If you want to argue the moon is rocks and dirt, run for the legislature to change the law." To put it another way, in an ideal world, the judge and jury could be of any political, ethnic, social, etc. persuasion and it should have no disparate impact on the application of the law. There is a place to change law and it's called the legislature.