from Yahoo! News Article "Scalia Dismisses 'Living Constitution' " by Johnathan Ewing, Associated Press Writer
Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."
"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break."
"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."
A static U.S. Constitution means no amendments--which also means no right to vote or citizenship for African-Americans and no right to vote for women, among other things. This begs the question: Would America be the somewhat evolved society we know today if the morally appropriate course of social action had not been repeatedly subjected to the force of law? I do not believe that it would be. Which leads me to the conclusion, that on this particular subject, idiocy is relative to the level of privilege one has or has not experienced.