TRUTH: the ‘Living Document’ Doctrine is Lawlessness

Once again, I have encountered a reader who believes that the founders cannot possibly have meant what they said, and, therefore, we cannot possibly know what their original intentions were when they wrote the Constitution.  These people can be exceedingly frustrating to deal with as they have renounced the use of reason.  We can know this is true because they never seem to understand that, if they are correct and we cannot know what the founders meant, then we cannot know what they mean — and for the same reasons.  So why do they even bother to comment when they cannot even be sure they know what they mean, themselves?  However, setting all this aside, we still need to understand the foundation of their perverted reasoning.  At the core of this line of thinking lies the notion that the Constitution is a ‘living document.’  And, as with most things that are meant to deceive, there is a kernel of truth to what they say.  But because their reasoning is perverted, and their desire is lawlessness, it is easy for the casual observer to be deceived by that kernel of truth and tricked into accepting what is actually a lie.  This is why it is essential we know how the founders intended us to ‘interpret’ the Constitution — so that we are never seduced by the lawless individuals seeking to destroy this nation with their lies.

First, we have to understand that language is a form of logic.  This means it has rules that govern its application.  This is what gives meaning to the symbols we call letters and words.  If we deviate from the proper application of these rules, we change the meaning of what is said or written.  It is harmful enough when we do this unintentionally, but when it is intentional, we purposely deceive which — by another name — is lying (and when we lie for political purposes, it is called propaganda).  So, what did the founders have to say about how we should understand their written word?

“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

— Thomas Jefferson

“I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation.  In that sense alone is it the legitimate Constitution.  And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful, exercise of powers…What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.”

— James Madison

“The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.”

–Justice James Wilson

“The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments [documents] is to construe them according tot he sense of the terms and the intention of the parties.”

–Justice Joseph Story

Now, read what Madison said again:

“I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation.  In that sense alone is it the legitimate Constitution.  And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful, exercise of powers…What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.”

This is exactly what has happened under the perversion of the ‘living document’ as we know it today.  The Constitution is a ‘living document’ in the sense that it can be and has been amended.  However, the Constitution also prescribes a process by which it must be amended.  According to the plain text of the men who wrote and ratified it, any change made outside of this process is not binding.  In short, it is not law because it was enacted illegally.  Yet, since the Progressive era, this is exactly what has happened: the Constitution has been changed more and more by court rulings and other unconstitutional means to the point where the proper Amendment process has been all but abandoned.  This is lawlessness!


First, this means we need to understand the way the founders used language.  The words they used and their figures of speech have changed — as has the society in which they operated.  We cannot understand them outside of the context of their world.  So, if we are to be faithful to the law, we must learn about their world and their language.

Thankfully, this is easy.  Our founders were deliberate and meticulous in preserving their words on paper, and then preserving those papers.  Jefferson was explicit in commanding that as much of the founding documentation as possible be preserved for posterity.  This was done so that we could know what they believed, why and how they tried to enact it.  So we are not in the dark as to their intentions, it is just that the people pushing the living document lies simply do not wish to be bound by the Constitution.  To be totally honest, this is because these people are of this world, but the Constitution is based in God’s Laws.  We do not need to question this, the founders said so.  We just have to take them at their word and, if we wish others to take us at our word, we have no choice but to do so.  Anything less undermines everything we say along with anything we say about the founders (this is how the living document people demonstrate they do not understand logic: by undermining themselves with the very same reasoning they use to undermine the founders).  So we have to take the founders at their word when they tell us what they believed, why and what they were trying to do.

Finally, this means that any and all changes that have been made to our Constitution outside of the legal process are null and void.  They are no more the law of this nation than the laws of ancient Rome.  And no amount of claiming otherwise and pointing to Court rulings or case law decisions changes this.  All this does is confirm that we no longer live under the rule of law, but of man.


The founders pointed us toward principles and ideals.  Time and technology do not change this any more than they change the rules of mathematics or laws of physics.  The principles of liberty are as valid today as they were at the time of our founding.  This does not mean the founders hit their mark.  They were as human as we are, so they made mistakes — just as we do.  But this does not nullify the validity of the principles and ideals toward which they strove.  What it does nullify are all those who object to the founders on grounds that they did not all agree perfectly on every point.  Such claims show a lack of understanding, and a rebellion to reason.  No society is unanimous in agreement on anything, let alone matters of government.  But the founders debated the issues of their day, ratified them and then affirmed their understanding of what they had agreed to in their writings.  Therefore, we have no excuse today: they left us a clear record that speaks to us very clearly and we must accept it or change it using the proper procedures.  The understandings that were ratified by the States are the understandings they expected us to uphold unless and until they were properly amended.  This is the heart of republicanism.  Therefore, if we fail to adhere to their stated understandings, or we abandon the principles and ideal toward which our system of government aspires, we act lawlessly — and when we act lawlessly, society has a duty to deal with us for the good of all those still adhering to the law.

But then, the people pushing the notion of living document and amendment by court decree do not care about the law.  They have already admitted they are lawless by their very actions.  The only law they recognize is that of their own desire, and the only authority they recognize is force.  To them, might makes right.  They will say and do whatever they have to in pursuit of their goals.  This is why they show now command of logic (because logic has rules and they are lawless).  It is also why they are never consistent (constancy comes from obeying rules).  Beware of these people.  Learn to spot them, and how they work.  Then resist them at every turn.  Do not listen to them.  Do not trust them — you cannot.  They have but one ultimate interest — themselves.


2 thoughts on “TRUTH: the ‘Living Document’ Doctrine is Lawlessness

  1. The libturds want everyone to BELIEVE the Constitution is a living document because then you can murder it and bury it into the past. Then start with a new document created created by evil and corrupt humans filled with satan and islam.
    To make sure that man will NEVER be free again to think or feel for himself unless some gubbermint person tells him to and how.
    This is one reason out of many why libturds want a living document made out of the Constitution.
    and thanks for letting me post here, happy new years to you all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s