If the Constitution were changed weekly, it would still have meaning. Its meaning would be what the words say today, which might have little relation to what they said yesterday or what they will say tomorrow, but it would nonetheless have meaning today.
The danger lies not with amending the Constitution to address changing situations, but rather with trying to 'interpret' it to deal with changing situations without actually amending it. The former approach is risky, to be sure, but the latter is downright dangerous.
One thing I wish could be established as a rule would be a requirement that all court decisions be supportable using only cited constitutional and statutory references, without reference to stare decesis. Stare decesis could be used to justify the selection of one possible interpretation over another, but could not be used to justify anything which could not be justified from the original text.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Bush Administration own Specter? After all, Specter faced a tough primary challenge from a conservative, and Specter managed to win because the Bush Administration endorsed him (keeping with their policy of endorsing all Republican incumbents). Also, during the primary campaign, Specter appealed to conservatives by saying he would support Bush's judicial appointments. Now that he is elected, he is doing a total flip-flop. What an asshole!
I hope conservatives in Pennsylvannia don't forget this six years from now!