Is the Constitution a "living document"?

[Free Palestine]

Rome was a republic for five hundred years, before it became an autocracy.  They had a "living" Constitution.  Actually, they didn't have a written one at all!  We have a written Constitution that sets strict limits on government for that very reason, so that we do not go the way of the Roman Republic.  Unfortunately, even conservatives advocate ignoring the Constitution, and almost treating it like it isn't even there.

[Free Palestine]

We should clearly put that 3/5ths of a person part back in.

IT'S WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED!!1

Hurr Constitutionalists are all stupid dumb retards.

[Free Palestine]

We should clearly put that 3/5ths of a person part back in.

IT'S WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED!!1

Hurr Constitutionalists are all stupid dumb retards.

Not at all, just a little misguided in my opinion. The Constitution is a great document and parts of it should be followed, and parts of it were wrong that we have or should change. We shouldn't blindly stick to something archaic just for the sake of it.

Is the Constitution a living document, as per the question? No, not really. Though the people who interpret the constitution certainly are, and our interpretations of certain parts of the Constitution have changed over the decades. The Constitution should be changed regularly over time to adjust for new changes and modern society, that's all most of us ask, I think. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to cling forever to a dead and outdated document just because it's what a group of men 240 years ago decided was best at the time.

It's not clung to simply because it's what a group of men thought was best two centuries ago.  Constitutionalists believe that the system established at the Philadelphia Convention was best, and all the changes made to it, such as with the Seventeenth Amendment, made things worse.

[Free Palestine]

Its interpretable  -- its language is broad in many places such that a range of actions can fit under its terms.  For example, what precisely does it entail to  "provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States"?  This is a changing concept.

Interpretation of the Constitution has only been used to back up a certain political agenda.  For example, during the New Deal, the Commerce Clause was interpreted to mean Congress could regulate commerce within states, when it's clear that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.  Same with the "General Welfare" clause, which has been used to interpret health care and other BS as being Constitutional.