alt Hacker NewsYour argument ignores two things.
First, the US constitution as it currently stands admits modifications. Amendments are version bumps. My understanding is that they’re harder to come by these days.
Second, the constitution may be written but the interpretation is always changing. In particular, the interpretation of laws around restriction of free speech have lots of history of being interpreted in ways that may or may not be congruent with the intentions of the original authors, who’re dead, so we’ll never know the truth of it. It’s only been 107 years since the US Supreme Court decided that anti-draft speech in time of war COULD BE ILLEGAL. Apparently that was partially overturned in 1969.
Thirdly [naming, caching and out by one bugs!] it is far from clear that a written constitution will lead to a durable republic. It’s only been ~250 years. Too soon to tell.
> Second, the constitution may be written but the interpretation is always changing
It’s okay if the change is because you think the new interpretation is closer to what the constitution originally meant.
It’s democratically illegitimate to change the interpretation otherwise. A written constitution is already an impingement on democracy. But how can it be that whoever is doing the interpreting is allowed to restrict democratically adopted laws in ways the constitution didn’t originally intend to restrict them?