In college, I was taught that the US Constitution is successful due to its “flexibility”. This is the “living and breathing document” idea that liberals love so much. It allows them to defend issues like Roe v. Wade and gun control. Making abortion a constitutional right was never the intent of anyone drafting an amendment (imagine what the drafters of the 14th amendment would think). In the case of gun control, it directly violates the 2nd amendment.
None of that matters in this philosophy. The idea is that the Supreme Court can interpret the constitution to say whatever they want, in accordance with the times. After all, the founding fathers had no idea what life would be like 200 years later right? (Maybe that’s why there is an Amendment process...)
Of course this is absurd because by definition, a constitution is comprised of guaranteed rights. A constitution is important in a democracy because the majority rules. When majorities become reactionary, the rights of the few can be voted away by the will of the masses. If the document is flexible, then our rights are flexible, and we may as well not have a constitution. In other words, those that claim the constitution is a piece of paper that blows in the wind of public opinion are missing the point of a constitution. It is there to protect against public opinion. The constitution trumps public opinion.
This is directly applicable to issues today like NSA wiretapping and the treatment of Gitmo detainees. Some have claimed the Bush administrations actions regarding these issues as unconstitutional. Someone needs to call them on it and say the times we find ourselves in allows for change in the sacred document without going through the proper amendment process. It would expose the dishonesty of the argument and it would be rather entertaining at the same time.