ericpetersautos.com / By Eric Peters /
It’s said – approvingly, by some – that the Constitution is a “living” document.
Imagine any other contract that was also “living.” That is, subject to unilateral changes according to the whim of one of the parties to the contract.
Would you sign?
Would you feel yourself bound by such a contract?
Any contract subject to change without the explicit prior consent – freely given – of bothparties is no contract at all.
The words agreed to either have very specific meanings (this is what lawyers are for) clearly stated and clearly agreed to – or they don’t. If the meaning is “living” – subject to interpretation by one side or the other – then the document has no meaning, except whatever suits the party doing the “interpreting.” If that party has power to enforce its “interpretation,” then what you’ve got is not a contract.