"LIVING CONSTITUTION" HYPOCRISY: Roe v. Wade is written in stone!

WIKIPEDIA: "The "Living Constitution" is one name for the theory of Constitutional interpretation - particularly in relation to American Constitutional jurisprudence - which holds that the meaning of the text should grow and evolve with society, paying heed to 'the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society' a phrase taken from the Warren Court-era case Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958). The Living Constitution can be seen as standing in opposition to originalism and strict constructionism, ..."

The Left's praise for the "LIVING CONSTITUTION" approach to intrepreting the US Constitution of course ONLY applies to aspects of the Constitution that they don't like, and want to change - like the 2nd Amendment, for example. But to the Left, things like ROE v. Wade are of course written in STONE! (This in spite of the FACT that "VIABILITY" is now something entirely dfferent than it was when the decision was made!)

Another thing the Left thinks is a precedent written in stone: the "Right to Privacy."

But doesn't the Living Constitution approach mean that precedent should be broken if and when society has changed; isn't that what a "Living Constitution" actually means !? Then again, if the constitution can mean whatever a majority of the SCOTUS thinks it means then it means nothing, and cannot be a functional constitution - for to function, a constitution must be the reliably firm and consistent "bedrock" upon which the legal code is based; a constitution which is too changeable or too fluid can no more support the foundation of the legal code than a swamp near a flood plain can provide a base for the foundation of a reliably long-lasting building.

The Left's selective adherence to the "Living Constitution" is so hypocritical it laughable: It is so unprincipled that it's preposterous. Simply put: To the Leftist, adhering to precedent is ONLY of paramount importance when the precedent is a decision THEY won! And that's pure hypocrisy and old-fashioned demagoguery at it's worst.

Click HERE and HERE and HERE to read short articles on Scalia's critique of the LIVING CONSTITUTION approach.

[ASIDE: the Left's attraction to the Living Constitution approach is related to the Left's fixation on relativism. The Left thinks that values are NOT universal or absolute. The Left believes that values are relative - they're defined historically, and culturally. As moral relativists they have no problem agitating for more flexible and ever-shifting interpretations of the Constitution - as long as they advance their socialistic utopianistic policies. Leftists always subordinate means to goals - as when they advocate quotas and set-asides as if it was okay to use racism to end racism. The Right believes that passing new legislation is the proper way to change the legal codes and bring about "social change in a given society in ways which reflect the times," and that if that legislation is judged to be unconstitutional, that then the people have the option of amending the constitution. Judical activism - or "legislating from the bench" - is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and a Living Constitution is merely an rationalization for changing the constitution in an unconstitutional way.]