Crux

Obama, and liberals generally, view the Constitution as a "living document," which makes its content and meaning subject to any interpretation or revision that you can drum up enough votes to push through.  Under that doctrine, the essential nature of our government, its relation to private institutions and individual citizens, will be subject to fundamental change any time one party or the other manages to elect a President and a majority in the House and Senate.

Under that doctrine, to say that the US is a "constitutional republic" would be to say nothing of importance.  That such was never the original intent is indicated by the amendment process, which is onerous and difficult. Under a "living document" doctrine, there would be no reason for that, because the content and meaning of the Constitution could shift to and fro with the electoral tides.  That would create a version of rule by plebiscite, a tyranny of the current majority, which was something that their reading of history made the founders intent on avoiding.

The way ObamaCare was passed -- a hugely important and massively complex bill that nobody had read and that the public didn't want, rammed through a Dem-controlled Congress without a single GOP vote -- is merely a foretaste of how government power would be exercised under a "living document" constitution. Without any doubt, it would mean the end of America as we've known it.

Byron

The Right Question to Ask Obama on the Constitution