Which parts of the US Constitution need to have a more modern interpretation?

Of course it isn't. That's why it requires a rather stringent amendment to change anything so that people like you couldn't come along and claim things like it's a living document and change it and interpret it however the hell they damn well please

 

Bare in mind, it was the British that inspired that piece of legislation bill of rights.. You know, those scurvy soldiers sent over by tyrannical wig wearing king and queen... Same folks that though turning criminals lose on a country of peaceful Aboriginals was a good idea ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

This is what amendments and legislation are for. You don't get to change the meaning of the Constitution to suit your liberal agenda without lawful legislation or amendments.

 

And my counter point was that everyone who wanted to serve could and frequently did. And I went back and looked it up in case some one asked and I had misremember from and old discovery channel show the guy was Portuguese. Peter Francisco given yout chosen non de querre you might find his story interesting There was a one time a statue of him near a Portuguese community in New Jersy.

 

Ah, so Sally Hemings wasn’t a 14 year old child when Thomas Jefferson started their entirely consensual sexual relationship where the balance of power between the two was equal?
Why couldn’t two people in love be public? Was that unconstitutional? I suppose Jefferson would know the answer to that, after all he wrote it.

 

Okay, so ... we will never agree on this, and it is off topic for this thread anyway. Enough.

 

And we've used it how many times in nearly 250 years? Not exactly keeping up with the intentions of many of the founders.

We are stagnant, our politics have become binary. I find that boring at best, but I'm one of those annoying people who thrive on change.

 

There is ZERO evidence TJ had a sexual relationship with Sally Hemmings. The opposite. We now know TJ did NOT father any of SH children. You've been duped.

 

That's fake news. Thomas Jefferson didn't even attend the Constitutional Convention.

 

Except you are there to explain your intent, the founders are dead.

 

Except it has to be.

 

This is why the FF went to great lengths to make sure it was written as clear and succinctly as possible. They also engaged in much public discussion at the time giving us even more written material to define their original intent. The federalist papers (among others) were for just such intent. And of course this continues in our time. As amendments have been added over the years each results in broad public discussion as to its intent. SCOTUS opinions too are publicly disseminated, providing a great source of material for reference.

 

Soooo. Women should not have the vote?

 

But women shouldn’t or rather could not vote and anyone with a different skin pigmentation has fewer rights - yes?

 

The 15th amendment clarified blacks had the right to vote. The 19th amendment further clarified women's right to vote. The SCOTUS hasn't always produced good opinions, but in time they usually correct errors such as Dred Scott and Roe V Wade. The point is, if inalienable is to mean anything, the contract like all contracts mustn't be a "living document".

 

No. Where'd you dream that up?

 

No sorry you saw things you thought unseemly that you took to be crimes that were indeed not crimes. Things by the way you wouldn't have given a second glance had the involved anyone not named trump and nor would anyone else.

 

We are averaging about one every 14 years or so since the 1st ten.

 

That's why we had the nineteenth amendment.

 

not ones who aren't citizens of the USA.

 

So either it IS a living document subject to change or it is a nailed down treatise of biblical reverence and standing

 

Granted but the ORIGINAL document as I amended did not allow for women to vote

 

The original constitution

 

Yes that is why there are AMENDMENTS ergo it is subject to change ergo it is a “living document”

 

No. It is a simple concept. The King was subject to the Law of Parliament, and common law.