The Constitution for all times, or limited by its founding era?
In today's Uncommon Knowledge episode with William Voegeli, the guest asserted that "America was a very different place in 1920 than it was in 1787." This statement was expanded to argue that the Constitution was written for the people of it's time, and must be changed to accommodate the changing times.
Implicit in that statement is the idea that the Constitution of the United States was a document for the formation of a government that would serve only as long as the period of it's author's lives, and would then require changes as the times change. I believe that assertion needs to be vigorously opposed.
The Constitution isn't a document designed to define governance in this country. The Constitution is a document designed to constrain government. To keep it confined within the power of flawed man to govern without the power to satisfy his propensity for self aggrandizement through the accumulation of power. As such, it is the ultimate expression of the conservative mind towards governance.
Allowing for a long, difficult process for amendment was the only concession made for accommodation of the inevitability of the changing times that the Founders knew would come in future years. To make peace with the inevitability of changes in interpretation or adaptation to the times is to betray the very essence of what the Constitution of the United States is. How say ye?