The U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as a living document.

Wow…For one of my first debates I've bitten off quite a bit. Nevertheless, I have readied my argument for this round.First, concerning the shortness of the document:The Constitution being short is not a valid argument for weather it should be considered ‘living.’ The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, the powers of the United States government are ONLY those listed in the Constitution, provided by Article V that Amendments could be added. This means that the document is short only because the powers granted to the United States government are very few in number. Concerning ambiguity and ‘framers’ intent’:The writers of the Constitution never intended for it to be a ‘living’ document. Let us look to James Madison’s words on the phrase “General Welfare:” “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, country, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of our children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” [a] In other words, James Madison said that if Congress can stretch the term “general welfare” to fit nearly anything, it would allow Congress to spend money on anything it pleased. (Unfortunately it seems they are throwing money at anything and everything anyway, but that is another topic) Article 1, Section 8 is meant to describe exactly what the ‘general welfare’ means, but if you consider the constitution a ‘living’ document, you could turn this to say that in modern language, ‘general welfare’ would mean that Congress would be able to make laws on anything that it would deem such. Also concerning this, let us look to the words of Thomas Jefferson: “The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United Stated, at the time of it’s adoption.” [b]w This means that the terms used in the constitution should mean what the people at the time of the Constitutions adoption thought they meant, and should not be re-interpreted through modern language. This also disproves that the writers of the constitution meant for the Constitution to be a living document.Looking back to the implementations of the Tenth Amendment and Article V with concern as to the ambiguity:The implementation of the Tenth Amendment combined with Article V is also an argument against a living constitution per se. There is no need for the document to be living. Allowing it to be taken out of it’s original text, or allowing anyone to re-interpret it in modern language, would allow anyone to bend the Constitution to fit his/her will. The Tenth Amendment, combined with Article V, prevents one’s attempts to, greatly or even slightly, distort the Constitution under the assumption that it is a ‘living’ document. Your reference to the Supreme Court Case regarding the 14th Amendment actually strengthens this argument. In that case, an Amendment was passed adding on to previous legislation after being approved by the Supreme Court. This goes against your describing the Constitution as having meaning beyond the original text without the addition of new amendments.Sources:[a]: Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia, 5 vols. (1888), 4:429.[b]: Emphasis added. Thomas Jefferson, cited in the Freeman Institute’s American Classic Series, Thomas Jefferson (1981), pg. 65I also used:Erich Pratt, The Constitutional Recipe for Freedom (2010). Materials can be found at http://www.principlesoffreedom.com...