When they talk about a “framework for government or governing” they mean either 1. or 4. When looking at 1. it may appear relatively innocuous. It's just the “framework” for how America is to be governed. It helped to build our country and maintain our liberty.
But, 1. is actually insidious. The Constitution is unique across all human history. I personally believe that it is God inspired. It's entire purpose is to preserve liberty, individual liberty. Doing that involves governing and government, but when liberals use definition 1. they really mean that America is a work in progress: we have a flawed, but effective document (the Constitution), but we're still constructing our City on the Hill, our Eden, our Utopia; we've not yet achieved social justice. That's dangerous to liberty.
The truth is the Constitution is a contract and a “framework” for liberty. Liberty is a work in progress and if one doesn't like the Constitution then the same document has a method of correction - Amendments.
The second issue is with definition 4. If the Constitution is just a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality; then it is susceptible to “new” realities. It then becomes a living document and that leads to judicial activism.
If instead the Constitution is a contract then both parties to it, the people and the states, have a vested interest in seeing the contract adhered to. That leads to stability and stability preserves liberty. If the contract is whatever we say it is whenever we say it or whenever some judge says it is on a given day, well that's not a contract. It's a nothing.
Look what fiat currency has done to the value of the dollar. Fiat currency is whatever government says it is. Do we want that for the Constitution?
Thanks for the reply as it helps me better understand your point. Your 4th paragraph on the Constitution as a contract with a “framework for liberty” is my personal view. I find the Constitution to be a rules of the road for citizens to measure their government against.
I understand how you draw the differences in approach that are rooted in the definition you used and how those approaches can be dangerous to liberty.