[adrr]

" the vague "life, liberty, or property" clause as interpreted by Roe vs Wade. This is such a blank-cheque it may as well not be in the constitution as in hands all power to the interpretation of the courts."

If you read federalist papers or any of the writings of founders on the constitution. The constitution is a living document that is decided by the courts. It is really hard to have a fruitful debate without people having even basic knowledge on this subject.

[refurb]

No, it’s not a living document open to the whims of interpretation or flavor of the month.

That’s how you end up with Russia taking over Odessa due to “national security” reasons.

If it’s a living document it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.

[Chris2048]

I didn't say the courts couldn't interpret the constitution, but "living document" doesn't need to imply vague - RvW carved out a limited clarification without supplying a general rule of what is and isn't covered. The courts shouldn't have the power to totally skewer the constitution, ad-hoc.

> having even basic knowledge on this subject

That's your opinion. People debate in echo chambers all the time, if that's what you'd prefer.