Originally Posted by
canndo
What it mean is that the Constitution needs to be interpreted according to the times. What is cruel and unusual now was not then. This is only one example of our not being able to ... conform to the constitution exactly the way it was written. Furthermore, it happens that
the document was designed to change over time so it was never intended to be a static document.
...............through the amendment process, not through interpretation.
As the others have said - both. My point in using that particular portion of the Constitution was to illustrate that it is not static. There are no amendments to my knowlege describing what cruel and unusual punishment is yet that phrase now rules out lashing and stocks but it did not always do so. Hence, the document, much as I know you are going to hate this - "lives". It is as others say, an interpetation by SCOTUS. In fact I recall shortly after Thomas took to the bench, he ruled in a case where a prison inmate was struck so hard by a guard that his dentures broke in his mouth. He sued the state for the price of the teeth. Thomas ruled that although the behavior of the guard was indeed cruel, it was not unusual, being that the two conditions were inclusive, he therefore didn't believe the prisoner deserved his $1100.
In short, we couldn't and can't abide by the Constitution word for word.