Is the Constitution a "living document"?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It's neither living nor inert. But it is the height of stupidity to chain one's self to a two-and-a-half -century-old document. This is the same stupid mistake that religious fundamentalists make: reading into something a metaphysical meaning that exists outside of physical reality. From my perspective, I find it a mostly-objectionable document that, save for a very few elements (and these mostly in the Bill of Rights), ought to be scrapped.

You sound like Scalia here.