Progressive Constitution

The Constitution was designed to be living and breathing. In other words, the founding fathers of the United States knew change was a necessity for long term prosperity. They knew this by looking at examples in history, in which nations that failed to change eventually died out. The founders knew that unless the United States could continue to adapt to changing times, it would succumb to failure like all the other nations before it. It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court of the Judicial Branch to make decisions that change the way all of us live. Justices are essentially scholars of the Constitution and they attempt to interpret its meanings as well as they possibly can. It is their duty to protect us from new pieces of legislation which defy the Constitution and those pieces of legislation that may no longer have a place in the present time period. The Supreme Court has a right hand in determining the overall policy of the nation by deciding what cases should be heard and what decision is correct according to the time period. It is their responsibility to exhibit activism so that the country will continue to adapt and improve, because keeping our old ways of life will get us nowhere except to trouble in the days to come. Exhibiting restraint is failing to change with the times, and failing to prepare or adapt to the future. Our opinions on issues such as immigration, religion, etc, will continue to change as surely as time will travel forward. Perhaps opinions of abortion, health care, and government handouts will shift in the future. Perhaps they will remain constant. We cannot be certain what exactly will change, but rather, something will change. The only thing we can do as a people is prepare for that change and be ready to accept it as it comes. The one thing known for certain is that it will come. The justices selected must also be ready to establish this change when they see fit, regardless of what political ideology they belong to. This does not necessarily mean the judges should be overall of one ideology or the other, but rather, the Justices should be balanced. This balance should ensure a moderation, so that if the change is truly ready to occur, then it shall by majority. This balance, if practiced would prevent improper changes from occurring. Still, the changes that are necessary must occur.