“[W]e continue to evolve a cute little concept of a changing legal accommodation named the “Living Constitution Theory” which is only a perversion stating, “To heck with what our Constitution says; we in power will twist it to suit our ideas anytime and every time we so choose.””

Which is exactly what they've been doing.

If it's not written in stone, then you have nothing in writing.

Even those who lived at the time of its writing (indeed, even its signers) had to interpret it as it is the output of a collection of folks... each with their own view as to the meaning of the words. Those who claim otherwise are just attempting to enforce their own current interpretation upon all others.

Comrad Reston is at it again, and wrong, as usual.

The "A" from Reston, your statement has some validity with a thread of accuracy BUT, like every half truth, very misleading and ultimately supports an out right blatant lie. The Constitution was a natural / common law document that limited the scope of servant administrations. If it was not SPECIFICALLY authorized in writing, in the Constitution, it could not be done by the sovereigns' servants (by interpretation or otherwise). Further, if the individual sovereign could not act (as it would be criminal = compel another innocent third party's compliance, license others [to marry, do business, to contract, transport one's self or commerce, etc.], inflict punishment on the innocent [victimless crimes] commit larceny with impunity [funny money, income tax, etc.], take away inalienable rights [follow one's own non-criminal conscience, own property, pursue happiness, etc.]) the servant has no authority and could not act either. The occupying statist theocracy that now infests this land does not recognize, interpret, or limit itself by the Constitution !

Reston, the Federalist Papers that were published during the debates for the Constitution make clear every line of the Constitution and the intentions behind them. The biggest perversion of the Constitution occurred long after the deaths of the founders in which the entire context was changed from a rule book for the government into a rule book for the People. It has been twisted into the exact opposite of what it is -- instead of granting limited powers to the government and protecting not only the rights enumerated in the Constitution but all rights NOT enumerated, it has instead become a document in which the government can do anything it declares it can do and the only rights we have are those in the Bill of Rights and are subject to change at the government's will. And since the government has put itself in charge of teaching the people their 'rights' we have got folks like Reston who are convinced that they have a right to the property and labors of others upon threat of imprisonment and even death. Understanding that the Constitution is a contract between the People and their servant government is the key. I find it interesting that so many liberal 'secularists' have essentially turned their government into a church that worships only power and authority making themselves judges of the masses and subject to their arbitrary will. All the evils of the old religions have been perfected in a socialist oligarchy. Good job, Reston.

Well said Mike and Archer. Now I'm sure we'll see a very well thought out rebuttal from the Intellectually Superior and Liberal resident of Reston, VA. who proudly posts as "nobody". ;-)

The U.S. Constitution prohibits licence laws, rent controls, legal tender and zoning laws, Art.1, Sec. 10: "No state shall pass any law impairing the obligations of contracts." So you contract with me to perform surgery on your brain? The state has no authority to demand that I be licensed. If you believe surgeons should be licensed, get an amendment to the Constitution ratified that requires surgeons to be licensed.

Dave Wilber well said. By definition, a license is A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal (Bouviers Law Dictionary) Where in the Constitution does it state that the government, having and holding all rights aloof from We The People, is the master (competent authority) over the individual helot, serf, and slave ? It doesn't. By what lawful nexus or operation of law did surgery become an illegal act ? There is none. Safety and competency are issues completely outside the issue and scope of licensing.