[lehighguy]

There are however practicle concerns with your method. The constitution can change, and it has. Women can vote, slaves are free, senators are elected rather then appointed. It is not as if the constitution can't change with the times, it can be amended.

Perhaps these things would have come sooner with you version of interpretation. However, there would have been inevitable problems with this method. There are issues that the court could have decided on that are not generally accepted today. Today's court could make cloning illegal if it choose too. There is no way to know if that decision will be accepted 100 years from now. It's quite impossible to know. Just as the court can get it right it can get it wrong. Korematsu and the japanese internment camps are a good example.

Even leaving that aside, giving the court such immense power and a liscence to use it as it wishes politicizes the court. One look no further then my local politics to understand the effects. New Jersey has an independent supreme court that is well respected. The Pensylvania supreme court is done by election. That court is not very respected. From what I understand one of the justices tried to run another over with his car. Supreme court appointments are becomming like little elections, and it will have a long term detrimental effect on the court and our country.

Moreover, none of the issues decided by the supreme court have solved anything. Roe v Wade didn't settle the abotion debate. All it did was push it underground and allowed it to fester and poison our political process.

Your method might lead to more beneficial changes happening quicker. But there is no gurantee all those changes will be beneficial or accepted. Moreover, it causes damage to the court and our political process.

If one wishes to change the constitution, they should amend it. If they wish to write a law to govern an issue not addressed in the constitution (like abortion, or cloning, or artificial intelligence) they should be able too without being restricted by the court.