Early 20th century, state sovereignty-ignoring Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendal Holmes promoted in Missouri v. Holland what is actually the constitutionally limited federal power ignoring idea imo of “living Constitution.”
More specifically, the so-called living Constitution is nothing more than a politically correct, anti-state sovereignty argument that pro-centralized power radicals successfully use to subvert the will of the Constitution’s Article V state majority as enumerated in the Constitution imo.
In fact, in stark contrast to Holmes’ promotion of lose interpretations of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson had wisely suggested the following. Jefferson had suggested interpreting the fed’s enumerated powers narrowly, the states amending the Constitution for specific new powers when narrow interpretations of existing powers won’t reasonably work.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids.” —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Poor Thomas was literally incapable of imagining the violence and irrationality that the Judicial Branch itself could inflict on the Republic, left to their own devices...