On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:09:34 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Dave Bugg" wrote in
news:U%Jpj.2463$EK3.1805@trndny04:

the "Living Document" nonsense operates on the interpretation of what
words
or phrases mean depending on the *popular opinion* of the current time.
(IOW,the concept of "written law" tossed under the bus)

The term "Living Document" may well mean as you indicate. If that was
so then I was in error to use it as I did. My intention was to indicate
that despite the popular opinion, the Constitution is a document subject to
change as all living creatures are subject to change.

While I understand there are two lines of thought on the subject, one
suggesting that the words as they appear in the document are fixed, but
since the English language changes somehow the meaning may change, and
another suggesting that the words and their meanings as they were known when
written are the true meaning. I tend to agree with the second. The
Constitution IMO should be interpreted today as it would have been when the
ink was still wet.

The problems are much the same as the religious arguments based on the
King James Bible compared to a modern translation. The English language of
King James is a whole different language that today's. In both cases it can
make interpretation difficult.

Joseph. You hate guns; never, to change my mind. Leave the Bible out
of it. You are the single person in the thread to want guns TAKEN from
citizens..................


Oren
--