No, it is because I have zero tolerance and no respect for dishonesty.
If you can’t understand why the contemporaneous, collective interpretation of the president and congress embodied in an official action such as legislation is for purposes of constitutional jurisprudence considered far better evidence of intent than some particular individual’s statement in a journal or a letter, then you are going to have a problem with constitutional jurisprudence.
I am arguing the exact OPPOSITE of the “living document” theory.
My position is pure “originalist” theory.
My sole criterion is “what did the founders intend Article III to mean in 1789.” That is called “originalist” doctrine.
And unlike some other cases of constitutional jurisprudence, where people have to argue from what person X said in a letter, or what person Y stated in a newspaper, in this question we are fortunate because we know for a fact what the collective view of this group of men, the first president and the first congress, who to a large extent were responsible for actually writing the constitution, was on this very issue in 1789.