The Constitution is not a living document. It is inanimate ink on paper. It can only be altered deliberately, in the manner defined within the document. This is what is meant by a government of laws not men (or folk, or he-she-its).
It's not supposed to be, but some judges treat it as though it is. My point was more along rhetorical lines. They say it is "living" as if that is a good thing. But what they are actually doing when they treat it as living, is they are crapping all over the written agreement, violating it, killing it.
They know that, and are trying to justify their over-reach with clever-sounding rhetoric.