I was very pleased to see this front page article in the Deseret News this morning. The headline and the graphic on the side of the print edition referenced the "Living Constitution." That struck a chord with me. I hadn't really thought of this idea before and I am fully aware how many strict-constructionists or original-intenters don't like the idea of a living Constitution because they think that makes it too malleable and subject to political whim. But on the other hand, the obvious opposite of "living" is "dead." And I certainly don't want a dead Constitution.
I just can't believe our inspired Founders wanted us forever to interpret our self-governance as they would have. Sure, they provided for Amendment for the big things, but just how to make the process work has to work for our time as well as theirs. To go a little "Mormon" on this idea, we certainly pay a lot more attention to living prophets than we do to dead ones. In fact, that was the problem when the Savior Himself walked the earth. The people didn't recognize Him standing right in front of their eyes because they were so dogmatically stuck on the way they thought the dead prophets had set up the rules.
Bottom line, there is not just one right way to interpret the Constitution. The process is everything.