A polite reminder to ALL.

Personal attack is not acceptable, period.

Strawman?  So slavery didn't actually exist?  Or Lincoln and the abolitionists at the federal level weren't trying to push over state's rights which was exactly what you said started in the 1940s?

Where in the U.S. did you go to school where they taught slavery didn't actually exist?

A more recent example that could be used was the 24th Amendment in the 1960's, which is how Southern Dems became Dixiecrats, then Republicans, then Tea Partiers.

That said, in that case, the other 39 or so states did have the votes.   That was a more modern example of the majority imposing its will on the minority, for a good reason.   (It can be for bad reasons as well- see Egypt and what the Muslim Brotherhood tried to do over there, or Erdogan and Turkey)

Minority obstructionism can be good or bad as well.  This is one reason why there is no real perfect system for democracy.

That said, we do have some problems with our current system- the electoral college, gerrymandering, filibustering department heads and judges just to keep an office unfilled-  being the three big structural ones,

When was the last time a bunch of idiots drove planes into buildings?

Just because it has not happened does not mean it never will.

Most of the information is for the kids reading these posts, not for you.  The information I was giving you wasn't a lesson in civics, it was a lesson in natural rights.  Since you are obviously ignorant of this, I'll inform you that Civics replaced Natural Rights as a part of the core curriculum in the 1800's and after a lot of research I believe that this change is one of the main reasons that the founding principles of this country have become thrown out.

We don't have to be friends, neighbor, it's a free country.

I consider taking the perspective of the founding fathers to be a red herring on the modern understanding of constitutional law.

Here is why:

1. The founding fathers are dead and therefore not around to make their real opinion known and there is no one alive today that can remember them.  This creates an implicit understanding of the constitution because there are no primary sources.

2. Historical documents are what was written down, not necessarily what actually was, tainted by their bias and possible exclusions.  This creates an implicit understanding of the constitution because the writers of the documents aren't around to interpret them properly.

3. The idea of a living constitution comes from the lawyers and historians that try to interpret the writings of the constitution so that new regimes can exploit cultural ignorance(media) so that they can gain more power.  In this way the constitution is subverted, as a legal document it should be explicitly read, because one of the defining qualities of a constitution is that it is an explicit document and cannot therefore be read honorably with an implicit interpretation.  Constitutions are written knowing full well that they are explicit documents.  Please look up the meanings of implicit and explicit if you don't know them, it will be painfully obvious if you respond without knowing this.

A living constitution is subversive and not law.

This thread could live on for another 10 years and this point will still be its high water mark. 

+1 to you sir. 

This is the entire reason they added a formal process to change the document as times warranted.  That they made the process difficult was because they didn't trust the whims of majority.

The founding fathers gave implicit acceptance of slavery, and regarded women and ethnic minorities as property.  If it is subversive to find aspects of the original constitution, before adoption of amendmends, as having been in any way evil -- such as slavery -- then I am proud to be subversive.

The founding fathers knew that the document would need to change.  That's the reason for the amendment process in the first place.  

If the words in the document don't have concrete meaning, which the theory of a "living" constitution says they do not, then the document is useless. It's just another vehicle to impose the ruling class's will on the people and it has in fact been subverted entirely from it's original place in our society. 

That's why we have case law.  Living constitution does not supposedly allow you to contravene previous SC decisions on the same amendment unless you can come up with another argument.  (though this gets ignored on occasion by the SC)

There are limits on the living constitution.

That's not what a living constitution means though.  Living constitution has nothing to do with case law per se.  As a concept it is saying that the meaning of the phrases within the document should be interpreted through current context in order to keep the document relevant with modern society.  Simplified somewhat it is saying that the meaning of each clause changes as society changes.  

Which defeats the purpose of a constitution.  It is no longer an explicit set of rules to govern ourselves with.  It is something fungible based upon "modern interpretation".  

The founders knew the document would need to be changed and updated.  That's why the amendment process exists.  The entire doctrine of "living constitution" is just a method to replace the meaning of clauses that a particular group doesn't like with a meaning that they prefer  while avoiding the debate around amendments all together.  It's a way to underhandedly avoid the checks on amendments that the framers purposefully wrote into the system. 

You have a really bizarre view of the Constitution.

I'll just take the Louisiana Purchase.  From wikipedia:

"Jefferson’s secretary of state, James Madison (the “Father of the Constitution”) assured Jefferson that the Louisiana Purchase was well within even the strictest interpretation of the Constitution."

Jefferson was well known as a strict constitutionalist.  Madison was the FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION.  They were the ones pushing for it.  You can have whatever opinion you want on the constitution, but when it is in direct conflict with Jefferson and Madison, well, I'm going to side with them.

The same kind of stuff applies to most of your views. The Supreme Court just doesn't agree with you.

Jefferson was convinced the purchase was unconstitutional.  He did it anyway out of necessity.  He was also the last holdout.  Committing to sign it if it made it through congress, it squeaked by on two votes.

His choices were wait for an Amendment and risk the deal falling through, or do it without one.  The result of a deal falling through was likely war with Napoleon.  The guy wanted to expand his empire there as well.  He was just experiencing some difficulties at the time and needed the money more than he wanted the empire.  War with England and the slave revolt that ended French control of Haiti and cost France a third of their income, minor little details.

My bizarre view on the constitution came from Jefferson himself.

Having an interest in this period of history I've read a number of biographies including ones on Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton not to mention founding brothers. It was pretty clear that the consensus was that the Louisiana purchase was unconstitutional. But our interests in getting it so strong that we looked the other way.  

Would you knock off the quasi personal attacks? 

That is false.  Women were never property (and crimes against them were prosecuted), and there were free blacks even then. 

Your statement is false in every aspect, but mostly because of your attempt to generalize the situation.  Slaves were regarded as property.  Ethnic minorities, women, and any other class of humans were not.

You only destroy your own credibility when you devolve into false histrionics.

The irony is that Jefferson (in his letters) acknowledged that the Louisiana purchase was contrary to everything he believed.  Why he did it still has scholars debating to this day.  You can justify the expense in many ways, but the basic fact is that it grew the central government and assumed power that was not intended.

The problem with the Constitution was that it was written by smart honest men.  Not by sneaky lawyers, so the latter have used the lack of specificity to corrupt it over the last 200+ years.