Thanks for the reasoned and articulate response. Your points are well-taken but, in my opinion, wrong. Your concession that my comments were prompted by considerations of "principles...of how the founders intended them to work" renders much of what followed moot. If the judiciary worked the way the founders intended it to we wouldn't be havng this discussion. My proposals are intended to have consequnces similar to that intended by the founders. Your points are well-stated but have no more practical effect than paying some street crazy to stand in front of the Supreme Court building and shout "Observe original intent!"
As to specific points:
I do not believe in a "living constitution." Perhaps I stated my position badly. My point is that the concept of stare decisis is inconsistent with the concept of a "living constitution." Let's have one or the other. What we have now doesn't make sense.
I did not advocate "dispensing with" any constitutional provisions at an arbitrary date. I proposed limiting the precedential value of Supreme Court decisions to a term certain. This will have one very practical result: Right now, the Supreme Court is rather lethargic about granting certiorari in matters that may have been half-assed decided. If we limit stare decisis, lower courts will gradually reject unsound precedent (and follow well-grounded rulings) so the Supreme Court will repeatedly be re-presented with weak rulings and have a chance to address them.
The life appointment of judges was an iffy proposition from the outset. It likely was the brain-child of the brilliant but self-destructive Hamilton, who wanted the executive to also serve a life term. Franklin wisely observed that the mind sometimes putters out before the body. I am dubious of the notion that executives appoint judges with the expectation that they will "grow" into their office. Life tenure in the extreme is more likely to produce decisions flavored with senility than wisdom.
The Supreme Court bought into that Blackstonian twaddle that courts merely declare what the law is, much like Michelagelo thought that his job was to free a sculpture of the excess stone. Some legal scholars interpreted Blackstone to mean that the only valid Supreme Court decisions were unanimous. Maybe we should only let the Court screw with legislation if the opinions are unanimous.
You go through a lot of convoluted "methods" and "practices" as a sloppy means to fix the essential problem, which, you half-heartedly admit is that judges, and particularly Surpeme Court judges in matters relating to the meaning of the constitution do not uphold the meaning of the constitution, as it is given to them.
We can, and we will provide the means to, make them adhere to the "orginal intent", through legislation and/or constitutional amendment. Which is the type of actions any of your suggestion would require. So why beat around the bush, with a bunch of minor changes that simply let later judges throw out the dictates of earlier judges and replace them with new dictates of their own. It does not solve the essential problem, which is not procedural but conceptual. Set the concept into the law/constitution.
And no, let's not have a "living constitution", if by that you mean judges write a new constitution through their own dictates with each ruling. It is incompatible with the democratic basis of a constitution in a democratic republic.
In my opinion your points are well taken, but tangential to the issue.