Quote Originally Posted by Puckstop31 View Post
We can start with a simple question, that often generates a LOT of healthy debate.

- Should the Constitution be interpreted as the founders intended, or should it be a "living and breathing" document and more loosely interpreted based on the current social era?

No right or wrong answers here... Just trying to generate honest discussion.
For the sake of discussion –

Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
There have been 27 such amendments since The Constitution was adopted – the first was ratified in 1791. Hardly enough time to take a deep breath before changes were made.

Also from 1791, Amendment IX –

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Certain rights not specifically enumerated . . . . . . this could cover a multitude of rights not even imagined back then.