The "progressives" want us to believe that the Constitution is a "living document."
Because, well, it IS!!
Just not in the way they CLAIM it to be. Once again, the "progressives" (or what ever name they are going by this week) have taken a term, "Living document" and fitted it with their own definition, as if that makes their definition the correct one.
The Constitution absolutely IS a living document, but not in their sense of the term. The Constitution is a living document because it contains the ability to "grow and change" with the times. This is NOT done by re-defining the words in the document (as the progressives claim) but through the established AMENDMENT process.
The Amendment process allows us, (we. the people, etc) to add to or remove things from the Constitution. That is the sense in which it is a "living document". And that is the only sense in which the Constitution is, or should be changed.
Yes, there is also the "new Constitutional Convention" option, but to date, that has never been used (and hopefully never will be!) the Amendment process has been in use, and does work, proving that while a bad idea may become law (Prohibition) the same process does work to undo that bad law (repeal of Prohibition).
Where the Amendment process falls down is only in the opinions of people who think that their pet social theory should be a Constitutional amendment, and they don't get it passed. It may be a good idea, it may be a fine idea (equal rights for women, balanced budget, term limits, or something else) or it may be a very poor idea (Prohibition) but that doesn't mean we have to have it as a Constitutional Amendment. The process allows for either to be passed, and either to be repealed as the will of the people.
That is what makes it a living document, not changing the definition of the words in it.