> In reality, it was meant to be a living document that evolved with the times, not an immutable ledger of all our misdeeds and misjudgements. The motte of thi

> In reality, it was meant to be a living document that evolved with the times, not an immutable ledger of all our misdeeds and misjudgements. The motte of this sort of claim is the essence of English common law, in which precedent and interpretation of the written law is the responsibility of the courts. The bailey is the premise that judges who dislike the law should disregard it, and rule the country by proclamation of new law which they have claimed to discover within the law as written and understood before their inventions. I support the first of these, not the second. If you don't care for the law we have, there are mechanisms to change the law of the land. Yes, some of them are difficult. That doesn't give the judiciary the right to cheat the process.