Would you want to play poker with someone who stated that the rules were “living”?
If we have a “living” Constitution, we have no Constitution.
It’s a contract with an amendment process.
“It’s a contract with an amendment process.”
I like that. Scalia himself said once the constitution is “an enduring document” as opposed to a “living constitution”. How is it though, that the politicians of the day (however ill advisedly) realized they needed to pass a constitutional amendment “prohibition” to outlaw booze, but there are scant few amendments since that time regulating toilets or light bulbs?