Is the Constitution of the United States of America a Living Document?

Title: Is the Constitution of the United States of America a Living Document?: An Analysis.

Abstract: The US Constitution is not alive. However, the Constitution of the United States of America is a living document because is it is in force in the United States. Its life, however, is threatened by the very proponents of the living document theory.

Introduction: A debate rages between loose and strict constitutional constructionist over whether or not the Constitution of the United States of America is a Living Document. This study explores that question.

Methods and Materials: Webster’s Dictionary was consulted for word definitions as it is the traditional American dictionary. This was used to define ‘living’, ‘live’, and ‘alive’. The university of Leicester was consulted on the biological characteristics of living things. Using these sources to determine what characteristics the COTUS must exhibit in order to be considered alive, a wide range of chimerical scientists and studies were consulted to determine if previous studies on COTUS show any indication that the document is, in fact, a living document. All results were then confirmed with constitutional expert Nicholas Cage.

Results: Webster’s Dictionary states that ‘living’ is an inflected form of ‘live’. The relevant entries for ‘live’ were as follows: “1) to remain in human memory or record lives in us all”>, or 2) to be alive : have the life of an animal or plant.” The entry for ‘alive’ states: “1) having life : not dead or inanimate or 2) still in existence, force, or operation : Active”.

From the University of Leicester website, the characteristics which most biologists believe is common to all living things are:

• Living things obtain nutrition and use energy.
• Living things move and grow.
• Living things reproduce.
• Living things respire.
• Living things excrete.
• Living things are sensitive to their environment.

Hall and Oats’ (1971) study of COTUS determined that all extant original copies of the document did not require nutrition. In the study, a large Ruth’s Chris steak was place in front of the document, free of charge, but no consumption or attempted consumption followed. They further determined that when light was shined upon the document, photosynthesis did not take place.

A further study by the Doobie Brothers (1972) found that COTUS failed to respond to music, leading them to conclude that the document did not, in fact, “listen to the music”. Jeff "Skunk" Baxter, also a Pentagon consultant on missile defence systems, believed at one point that the COTUS acted defensively against “China Groove”. The ACLU weighted in, stating that the COTUS should not be subjected to further tests, citing concern that “Jesus is just Alright” should not be played to the document due to the separation of church and state which is not actually in the document. This study is widely cited as the conclusive proof that COTUS does not move, since who can resist grooving to “What a Fool Believes”? COTUS may not move, but does it, in fact, grow? Mac Fleetwood looked into the issue, finding that although COTUS experiences minimal expansion and contraction due to changes in temperature and humidity, the manuscript itself is not believed to have grown any larger in the last two centuries.

The question of reproduction is a more complicated matter. Donald Henley’s 1980 book is widely held as the most comprehensive survey of COTUS reproduction, getting to the heart of the matter better than any competing study. Although Henley found that there existed an increasing number of similar documents which could be the offspring of COTUS, extensive historical research found that such documents were not in contact with COTUS at the time of their creation. Such documents are believe to be mere copies produced independently from COTUS. Henley further concluded that COTUS showed no ability to reproduce either sexually or asexually, even when easy access to glossy codices was provided.

COTUS shows no evidence of respiration. Hamilton, Joe Frank and Reynolds found that the document lacked a respiratory system and that levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide remained constant in COTUS’ glass case.

Concerning COTUS and excretion, the historical record shows that while George III, upon reading the document, exclaimed that it was “full of $*&#”, most scholars now believe that he was only employing an idiomatic phrase and should not be taken literally. No evidence of excrement has been found over the years.

COTUS is sensitive to its environment. NASA studied the effects of the environment on COTUS in order to determine the ideal conditions in which to preserve the document. Although poor conditions will cause the vellum to deteriorate (COTUS is printed on sheepskin, not hemp as the potheads would have you believe), COTUS itself in unable to respond to the environment and therefore does not meet the necessary qualification for life.

In conclusion, COTUS exhibits none of the characteristics common to living organisms. The document, however, could be said to be living due to the fact that it lives in human memory and remains in force in the United States of America.

Discussion: COTUS itself is not alive. It does not adapt to environmental or cultural changes. It can, however, be externally altered through the amendment process as detailed in the document. Although it is a ‘living’ document to the extent that it is still in force and in human memory, it is not a ‘living’ document as the loose constructionists would like it to be. In fact, the more the legitimate amendment process is bypassed by judicial activism, the more an extra-constitutional law rules the Unites States and the less the actual COTUS is in force and, therefore, fades from human memory. The advancement of the ‘living document’ theory is thus killing the document.