What the author fails to understand is that if the Constitution is a malleable and evolving document subject to "reinterpretation" and redefinition by an evolving panel of 5 individuals, then the it is not a constitution at all and there are no constraints whatsoever on the power of any tyrannical despot who manages to rise to power.
Excellent observation. Such a view also turns the concept or “rule of law” backward into the centuries-old, yet now American “progressive” idea of “rule of men” (expanded to include “human beings”).