This isn't true.
If you look at the old Medea-Persian laws they were unamendable/unrepealable, which came to be a "plot point" in the book of Daniel, where he was put in the lion's den because he prayed (which was a trap wrought by his enemies) even though the King wished it wasn't so (and couldn't sleep all that night because of it).
So there are different axes on that are needed to describe the law, at least two: live/dead (how applicable it is) and variable/constant (the ease of impossibility of changing the law). {There could also be a third axis for applicability: general/specialized. (i.e. how uniform the law treats people.)}
OneWingedShark: I am not sure that we are not on the same page here. I hope some of this will clarify how I read your reply.
(I think)I understand fully what you’re getting at and I agree. When progressives say that the Constitution is “living and breathing”, they are saying that it is so ‘variable’(to use your word) that the enumerated amendment process is entirely unnecessary. Judges can just change it on a whim, or Obama can do it by decree.
The American Constitution is certainly ‘live’(to use another of your words, because it applies to us as citizens) but it is not living. Judges do not, or at least should not, have the right to change the words outside of the amendment process.
This is why I made the point that the British Constitution is living and breathing; it is so variable that it only requires a 50% majority to amend.
If I/we are still slightly misunderstanding, I look forward to your reply.