Elena Kagan: "Justice Leahy,... Those [Constitutional] Provisions Were Meant To Be Interpreted Over Time"

The statements by Elena Kagan are nothing more than utter and complete bunk. Of course the Constitution is "interpreted over time," but what she is getting at is that the Constitution in a living document that can change over time. Those the adopted the Constitution did not in any way intend for it to have a meaning that could easily change over time. To believe that is to believe they thought what they were doing in writing a Constitution was essentially pointless. Why would they commit a constitution to writing, and include in Article V the specific and only means by which the Constitution can be amended, if the Constitution could be changed constantly and inconsistently by unelected federal judges? Those who drafted and adopted the Constitution believed that the only legitimate method of Constitutional interpretation was to look to the original meaning of the words in the Constitution.

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" who played one of the most significant roles in the drafting and ratification of all of the Constitution's earliest provisions, wrote to Henry Lee in 1824, "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 it is 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 its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. 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 but one of many quotations from the Founding Fathers that clearly indicates that the original meaning of a provision of the Constitution is the meaning that was intended to be given to the provision. They never thought that it would be in the hands of judges to alone have the power to change the Constitution at their own whim as they saw fit over time. To propound such a ridiculous theory in the Senate Judiciary Committee as a nominee to the Supreme Court is to make a mockery of the Constitution. Tweet