From a reader:
Glad to see Ramesh addressed this. It is the Progressives who seek to avoid the Constitution, and thus lessen its authority, by having an enlightened Judiciary interpret justice. Thus we get decisions like Roe (based on medical research) or Brown (based on Social Science data and self-esteem rather than genuine equal protection) where the court reinvents the Constitution continually. Your opposition to a “living constitution” is a compelling attack against this mentality. By amending the Constitution to make change you show reverence for the document, if not its specific contents, by using its own provisions. It is those that ignore the document because they “know better” who do it great harm.
To change this into an anecdote. Who is more reverent of their parent’s rules? The child who does what he wants anyway because the has “learned from the lessons of his parent’s lives?” Or the child who when he encounters a conflict with his parents rules goes to all the other parents in the neighborhood to see their policies and then asks his parents if they will reconsider?
Though not an exact comparison, this shows the type of behavior exhibited. For an actual comparison the child would have to present a case to the parents against their own policy. Since an amendment is “we the people” deciding, “we the people” being a continuous phenomenon. “We the people” is the people of the United States in all times, not just at the founding.