The US Constitution is metaphorically referred to be living by some because it is thought by many to have lost its meaning if only interpreted in a strict constructionist originalist manner, which would mean that the Constitution is best interpreted to only hold its strict, very limited meaning that applied to 18th century society. Many of the reasons for this are that rulings such as ones ending racial segregation, bans on interracial marriage, and etc, that are generally accepted and now quite popular very well may not have been stopped were it not for a liberal interpretation of the Constitution. The idea of a "living Constitution" has acceptance among many (though not all) because the concept is accepted to have advanced American society and progressed equal opportunities.
One prime example is the 14th Amendment's so-called 'Equal Protection Clause', which states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Originalism would be the philosophy that it should be interpreted to only apply to the historical passage of it - to only apply to freed slaves. Whereas one who prescribes to the philosophy of a 'living Constitution' may take it in a more textualist manner - by what it actually says, "all persons", enabling its interpretation for equal protection on the basis of gender, race (all races, not just freed slaves or African-Americans), disability, or, perhaps - sometimes, sexual orientation.
Some would say that the "Federalist Papers" and the "Anti-Federalist Papers" for the actual conversations and debates that went on surrounding the drafting of our Constitution. However, the relevance would be the judicial philosophy of originalism - the belief that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was written to apply at its adoption, in the 18th century, and not applied to the changes of social mores and perceptions of things like 'equal protection' among the general populace.
Liberals
The Constitution of the United States is considered a living constitution because it can be ammended by the Supreme Court and so while it was written a long time ago it is still being changed to this day. So, because the original document is not "written in stone" and can be altered it is considered to be a "living" constitution. If this is a homework question, next time use the index or table of contents if you are unwilling to do a bit of proper reading or research, it will only take about a minute to find the answers.
The Preamble
The US Constitution is organized into three main partsPreamble- introductionArticles- tells how the government worksAmendments- revisions to the original document
Articles of Confederation but it failed
The US Constitution
An amendmentapex
yes, because its always subject to change
its like a document but for the US Constitution
bill of right
living document
Of course the statement "the constitution is a living document" is metaphorical, since no document is living, it's a piece of paper with writing on it. As a metaphor, this statement would suggest that the constitution remains relevant and connected to the society which it helped to establish in the late 18th century, which is a long time ago. If you think that the constitution has become irrelevant, then you would say that the constitution is not a living document. Personally I find it to still be relevant.
that the constitution would be a living, breathing document. ~Ham
The Constitution
Constitution
Antonin Scalia, Supreme court justice. "The constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document."
It's known as living , Because when can edit it , which are called Amendments .