Coming from a background of literary studies, I can tell you...all texts are living. :) In any case, we have all sorts of things today that he FF would never have imagined..hence the genius of the broad language of the Constitution that keeps us from having to change it hardly at all but merely apply its principles.
Well, we'd do better to handle things by statute rather than have nine unelected people "find" things when they are needed. The ultimate outcome would probably be no different but the process would be intellectually honest and would have avoided the politicization of the courts.
In Causeway Medical Suite v. Ieyoub, expressed dismay that the Supreme Court's broad readings of the word "liberty" in the Constitution "have slowly eroded the scope of public debate." Garza argued that if the court had stayed out of several arenas—for example, marriage, child rearing, school curricula, abortion—state laws might have changed "as public attitudes changed." Instead, "the people's Constitution—at least as to unenumerated constitutional rights—has become the Court's Constitution."