[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="lynxed"]
Lol, op, way to explain :roll: (I think it's good to raise literacy on this issue, though) This is a big debate among legal scholars and judges today.
Originalists believe that the Constitution should be understood as our founding fathers/the Congress that adopted the amendment in question saw their additions to the Constitution. For example, the right to privacy/right to abortion was (arguably) not something that the adopters of the 14th Amendment considered to be a fundamental liberty protected by the Constitution. Originalists believe that, because of this, there's no such right to privacy or abortion. Originalists' main argument is that to interpret the Constitution as "evolving" in a certain direction basically lets judges read whatever protections or rights they want into the Constitution, so long as they can somewhat justify it. Originalists prefer to have some grounding to avoid arbitrary and baseless decisions.
The Living Constitution is a concept advocated by those who believe the Constitution changes to adapt to new developments within culture and society. They do believe that we can adopt heretofore unrecognized Constitutional rights to do XYZ, regardless of whether the adopters of the 14th Amendment contemplated that particular right. Or, for another example, that"you have the rightto remain silent..." under the Fifth Amendmentintroduced in Miranda v. Arizona comes from a desire for adequate safeguards to constitutional rights andis drawn from the judges' opinions rather than the intent of the authors of the Constitution. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitutionfor more, if you're interested.
Currently, originalism is generally associated with conservatives (e.g. Justices Scalia and Thomas), while the Living Constitution is associated with liberals (the Warren Court, Justice Breyer).
Thanks for clearing that up. :)In that case I dont think you can characterise any constitution of any country as either. The constitution itself cannot be any of those. Its how a constitution is treated as.
In my opinion constitutions should be treated as Living Constitutions to a great degree.
I think its wrong to assume that the founding fathers of any constitution of any country were so insightful that the constitution they made has no need to be revised and/or corrected.
YW, but I do want to point out that the U.S. Constitution *does* have an amendment process in Article V. IMO, though, it's completely substandard, as it requires 3/4 of the states to ratify any amendment. I think that slows change too forcibly - it's rare you're going to get that many states to move quickly enough on an issue or even get that many to agree at all. This is why the amendment guaranteeing equal rights between the genders was never passed, and the level of protection for people facing gender discrimination is now in a very weird place. Look up the Equal Rights Amendment if you're interested. 
Log in to comment