# What about the parts of the constitution that aren't amendments? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 3, 2006, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-the-parts-of-the-constitution-that-arent-amendments/355216 "2006-05-03T11:40:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-the-parts-of-the-constitution-that-arent-amendments/355216/41 "2006-05-04T19:52:26Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Actually, Junior Mod, he was referring to Scalia’s [well-documented derision](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150428,00.html) for the “living Constitution” theory. While it might be reasonable to request a cite for the proposition that Scalia might resort to physical violence in response to an assertion of the theory, that Scalia has publicly and repeatedly stated that he opposes the theory is factually true. > > I leave it as an exercise for the reader to research Thomas’ public statements on the theory. I don’t think so. It’s clear from the quote he was responding to, that “living document” meant that it could be changed by amendment: > [@anson2995](#): > > That’s the beauty of it. It’s a living document, and while making changes is an intentionally difficult process, the original framers envisioned that future changes would be necessary. They outlined the process by which that could happen. My empahsis. How does this correspond to the "living document’ theory that Scalia disdains? It doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-the-parts-of-the-constitution-that-arent-amendments/355216/42 "2006-05-04T20:01:45Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t think so. It’s clear from the quote he was responding to, that “living document” meant that it could be changed by amendment: > My empahsis. How does this correspond to the "living document’ theory that Scalia disdains? It doesn’t. Perhaps if instead of adding your own emphasis you should look at the emphasis added in [the quote](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7360706&postcount=31). \*\*DxZero bolds the words “It’s a living document,” making it clear, at least to **Polycarp** and me anyway, that his comments are in response to those emphasized words and not the bit you underlined. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-the-parts-of-the-constitution-that-arent-amendments/355216/43 "2006-05-04T20:06:23Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Perhaps if instead of adding your own emphasis you should look at the emphasis added in [the quote](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7360706&postcount=31). \*\*DxZero bolds the words “It’s a living document,” making it clear, at least to **Polycarp** and me anyway, that his comments are in response to those emphasized words and not the bit you underlined. If that’s true, then he intentially distorted the clear meaning of the post. Since this is GQ, I corrected it. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-the-parts-of-the-constitution-that-arent-amendments/355216/44 "2006-05-04T20:13:16Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > If that’s true, then he intentially distorted the clear meaning of the post. Since this is GQ, I corrected it. Good for you. ---
**Author:** ![DxZero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DxZero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DxZero)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-the-parts-of-the-constitution-that-arent-amendments/355216/45 "2006-05-04T20:38:00Z")
Ok, guys… as demostrated Scalia has nothing but derision for the “living document” theory. I made the comment, basically to indicate that the “living document” theory has it detractors, namely a SCOTUS justice. Maybe I should have cited it, but its not like its a controversial subject that both Scalia and Thomas are originalists. They both identify themselves as such. The punching comment was a slight attempt at humor. I quoted the whole section so it could give the comment some context. If I had just quoted “living document”, that might have been hard to follow. I did however, bold “living document”. I don’t see how I intentionally distorted the meaning. Everything is not neccesarily a political potshot. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-the-parts-of-the-constitution-that-arent-amendments/355216/46 "2006-05-04T20:43:50Z")
> [@DxZero](#): > > Ok, guys… as demostrated Scalia has nothing but derision for the “living document” theory. I made the comment, basically to indicate that the “living document” theory has it detractors, namely a SCOTUS justice. Maybe I should have cited it, but its not like its a controversial subject that both Scalia and Thomas are originalists. They both identify themselves as such. The punching comment was a slight attempt at humor. > > I quoted the whole section so it could give the comment some context. If I had just quoted “living document”, that might have been hard to follow. I did however, bold “living document”. I don’t see how I intentionally distorted the meaning. Everything is not neccesarily a political potshot. OK, glad to hear that. I’m just confused why quoting the whole post gave it the context you were looking for, since the rest of the post actually gives it precisely the opposite context. BTW, Scalia’s judicial philosophy is routinely mischaractarized on this board, so that gives you some context for my own post, and why I felt the need for the correction. Sorry if I mistakenly jumped to a conclusion about your motives. I’m used to seeing a smiley after a joke post in GQ. ---
**Author:** ![DxZero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DxZero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DxZero)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-the-parts-of-the-constitution-that-arent-amendments/355216/47 "2006-05-04T20:48:16Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > OK, glad to hear that. I’m just confused why quoting the whole post gave it the context you were looking for, since the rest of the post actually gives it precisely the opposite context. > > BTW, Scalia’s judicial philosophy is routinely mischaractarized on this board, so that gives you some context for my own post, and why I felt the need for the correction. Sorry if I mistakenly jumped to a conclusion about your motives. I’m used to seeing a smiley after a joke post in GQ. Well I probably could have just quoted the two words, but I was just being lazy. And you’re probably used to having jokes being funny too. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-the-parts-of-the-constitution-that-arent-amendments/355216.md?page=2)