The next time that someone brings up the "living constitution," ask them if they think that the Constitution is a legal document, like a contract or a bill of sale... You might need mention that the Constitution is considered to be the supreme law of the land, if they don't understand the concept of a legal document. Then, aks them if they'd ever sign a legal document whos meaning can be reinterpreted at the whim of people who are interpreting it.
Would they buy a house if they thought that after the closing, the terms, or even the amount the house sold for could possibly change?
The simple fact is if a legal document has a meaning that can change over time, then that legal document has NO meaning whatsoever.
house contract is a good illustration. but people who believe in a living, breathing constitution would support the emminent domain decisions- at least until it came to their house.
Some would,(scary, isn't it.) or the adjustable rate mortgage, (not to mention credit cards), would never have happened.
I was sitting at lunch with a flaming liberal at a restaurant. He was spewing the virtues of the Constitution as a "living document". I explained how critical it is that the document is not a "living document". It must be interpreted precisely as written. He screwed up his face at that concept. I made it easier. I picked up the menu and asked if that should be a living document? Is it OK to update the price of your meal to 10 times the cost when you ordered it? Should you be required to pay a higher price even though you ordered it at the originally printed price? That was concrete enough for him to comprehend.