So the people who mean to do without the Constitution have come up with a slogan to keep up appearances: they say the Constitution is a “living document,” which sounds like a compliment. They say it has...
“evolved”---in response to---“changing circumstances,” etc. They sneer at the idea that such a mystic document could still have the same meanings it had two centuries ago, or even, I guess, sixty years ago, just before the evolutionary process started accelerating with fantastic velocity. These people, who tend with suspicious consistency to be liberals, have discovered that the Constitution, whatever it may have meant in the past, now means — again, with suspicious consistency — whatever suits their present convenience."
"changing circumstances,” etc.
"whatever suits their present convenience."
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. If you are suggesting that accepting that in nature life evolved means you have to accept whatever some wacko says the US Constitution should change into, then obviously this is nonsense. Evolution has no moral message. Just because in nature the fittest survive does not mean we should starve unfit humans. Just because male mice abort the babies of females who have already copulated does not mean we should kill the unborn. Why so many people seem to think that someone who argues that something did happen is also arguing that it *should* happen, I have never understood.