Yes.
A slightly different approach...Ask them to describe what the Constitution would have to be if the Founders had wished it NOT to be a "living" document but rather intended that it be literally interpreted.
Several things come to mind...
It would separate the purpose of the Constitution ("promote the general welfare" in the Preamble) from the powers granted to the government.
It would bind the officers of the government to take an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Consitution.
It would include a Bill of Rights to explicitly constrain the government.
The Bill of Rights would be worded in such a way that it prohibits infringement of rights but makes clear that the rights preceded the Constitution and exist independently of it.
It would explicitly warn that any enumeration of rights does not suggest that there are no others.
It would explicitly state that powers not granted to the government do not belong to it.
It would include "checks and balances" and the requirements for super-majorities to perform some functions which otherwise jeopardize true representation, e.g. the super-majority required to remove a President from office.
As others have stated, it would contain a detailed mechanism for amending the Constitution.
Recent scholarship addressing the Second Amendment establishes pretty clearly that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms and that such arms include those possessed by the government. There is a pressing need for an amendment prohibiting the possession of nuclear arms. The usefulness of such was clearly establish in August of 1945.
Similar scholarship regarding "strict construction" would probably establish that the Constitution is not a "living" document, but is a rather detailed, explicit enumeration of government powers.