What would a lawyer have to with the constitution?Same thing judges would have to do with it, which is try to interpret it.This idea that it is a static document that spells out in black and white the answers to all constitutional questions is totally wrong IMO.It was always intended to be a basic outline of rights that would need interpretation as we went.Thats what the supreme court was formed to do.You can argue about some of the interpretations but I don't think any serious constitutional scholar would argue that it was not meant to be interpreted.The founders I think delibertly did it this way as they were smart enough to realize that they could not forsee all eventual situations.I will just give an example of the changes in technology that have occured.There is no specific right in the constitution to not have your phone calls or e-mails monitored but it has been interpreted based on a right to privacy(another right not specifically mentioned) that it is unconstitutional in most cases to do so without a warrant.
good points you make. my concern, my fear, is in the centralization of power. the government was designed, per the constitution, with checks on power in mind. what has happened lately, is that power has gravitated to the executive branch. if a president is to be sworn in and take the oath to defend the constitution, (s)he should scale back these unconstitutional powers and put she shackles back on government.
it's human nature to seek more and more power, having tasted it. so i'm obviously concerned when a "constitutional lawyer" and his cabal take office, what shenanigans will transpire.
i don't think the constitution needs to be "interpreted", ever.
clarified? possibly. we'll trust the supreme court, for now.
amended? absolutely. if needed.
updated? let's give it a while.:2 cents: