In this post on the blog Marginal Revolution, Alex Tabborak cleverly points out that progressive argument that the Constitution is a living document collapses on itself when making the argument that it’s okay not to follow the Constitution since it evolved (i.e. we started ignoring it) around the time of the New Deal.
Because, if it’s true that the Constitution is a living document in the sense that progressives think it is, then what was good during the New Deal may not be good now. The Constitution lives after all.
I posted this comment on Marginal Revolution:
I agree that the Constitution is a living document. But it gets its life from Article V – Amendment, that way it evolves with a democratic process, not necessarily with language, ideologies and power grabs.
I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why we would want to the Constitution to evolve outside of the process laid out in Article V.