We the people inherited a monumental document from the Founding Fathers - pity we don’t always agree on its contents.

The United States Constitution, ratified in 1788, lays out the frame of the nation’s government and affirms the rights of its citizens. However impressive as a repository of wisdom and foresight, the constitution's broad language makes it subject to interpretation: It has been amended 27 times and is at the heart of many contemporary arguments over the government's scope and role.

The National Constitution Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit, launched an Interactive Constitution online Thursday that features a range of perspectives on the legal issues that animate today's political landscape.

It allows readers to sift through various interpretations of each amendment by top legal scholars — both liberal and conservative.

"The Constitution, though the subject of vigorous debate, is the one document that binds us in these polarized times," Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, said in an interview with Yahoo News. "It’s our birthright as Americans. The guarantees of liberty that it promises are really one thing that citizens of every different perspective can share and celebrate."

The American Constitution Society and The Federalist Society, two constitutional law organizations, helped select the experts to discuss matters of debate.

Interactive materials have been supplied for the first 15 amendments, and the center intends to fill in the rest over the next two years.

The United States Constitution was ratified on September 17, 1787.

For each provision, the scholars come together to write a joint statement about their common ground concerning its history and purpose. Then they write separate statements about how their readings diverge.

"It’s exhilarating to see how quickly liberal and conservative scholars, who disagree about so much, agreed about the core of the Constitution’s meaning for all its major provisions and how civilly they were able to voice their disagreements too," he said.

Rosen, also a professor of law at The George Washington University, tells his students not to believe anyone who says there is a clear answer to a constitutional question.

"There really are good, strong arguments on all sides and an obligation to educate ourselves as to what they are," he said.

For the project, law professors Barry Friedman and Orin Kerr, from New York University School of Law and George Washington University Law School respectively, wrote a common interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, which affirms the people's right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."



"Today the Fourth Amendment is understood as placing restraints on the government any time it detains (seizes) or searches a person or property," they write.

But, in the modern age, how should this 18th century amendment apply to the government monitoring computer activity? What constitutes unreasonable search and seizure of Internet data?

In the physical world, police can watch people in the public without constitutional oversight, but they need warrants to go into homes; Kerr thinks courts need to strike this same balance for online information.

"Just like in the physical world, the police should be able to collect some evidence without restriction to ensure that they can investigate crimes," he writes. "And just like in the physical world, there should be limits on what the government can do to ensure that the police do not infringe upon important civil liberties."

Friedman, on the other hand, argues that saying the Fourth Amendment protects privacy trivializes the matter - it protects security.

Policing that was once reactive is now proactive and aimed at everyone, he says, "from red light cameras to bulk data collection by intelligence agencies to airport security."


"When there is a particular suspect, the protections of a warrant and probable cause apply," Friedman writes. "But those protections make no sense when we are all the target of policing. In the latter instance the most important protection is that policing not discriminate among us."

Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson thought that education was necessary for full participation in American democracy.

Heeding this call, the College Board, which oversees the SAT, PSAT and Advanced Placement programs, is distributing the Interactive Constitution widely across American classrooms - integrating it into Advanced Placement History and Government courses.

Last year, the education nonprofit announced that they redesigned the SAT so that one of the five reading passages on each test would be a founding document or a document from the greater conversation of liberty that they inspired.

David Coleman, president and CEO of the College Board, said that knowledge of the Constitution empowers people not only to excel in school but also in civic life.

"The Constitution is a perfect example of how learning something very specific in depth repays enormously," Coleman told Yahoo News. "It's like a key that opens up so many conversations. It opens up a world of opportunity."

The Interactive Constitution is the centerpiece of a three-year project that was funded by a $5.5 million John Templeton Foundation grant.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/interactive-constitution-illuminates-bedrock-of-129365393106.html

http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution

They call the Holy Bible a living text because so many have (through translation and interpretation) changed it so many times, none more than the council of Nicea and the English. Nothing in the Torah the translated Old testament or the New testament says that at any time the books of the Bible are found to be 'unfit' to preach that the congregation may change remove or add parts as necessary. Still we know for a fact that's EXACTLY what the Council of Nicea did. Although this was a religious decision, it was undertaken in a political and more specifically a democratic fashion. Thank Constantine for the birth of political correctness. This decision I don't agree with.

The constitution however, is a legal document. As with the General statutes of the States, this is what I would consider to be a living document. Looking back just over the last 50 years of American history, look how much has changed. Internet becoming widely available, cellphones, smartphones, drones....
Now think of how many serious crimes have used these as evidence in just the last year. We have to continue to protect ourselves (law abiding Americans) from those who use these and other as of yet univented ways to do us harm.