I don't think a simple yes or no is sufficient for a question like that. It is far from "black & white". When referring to the economy, yes.That is not what I said. YOu mentioned accepted definition. The "accepted" definitions of words change all the time. Like the word "commerce", specifically. Economic descriptions have a high probability of changing with technology and all. If nothing else, it is realistic.They "interpreted".. the Rehnquist court and the marshall court era have interpreted them differently. Words meanings also change over time. Like "commerce"When you alter an accepted definition, you are in effect rewriting the Constitution because it doesn't mean what is says. No reason to change the words, you just change the definition.
Another great example, the line item veto. They denied that to the President saying he would be essentially be changing a law to a different form than what congress passed. Yet they reserved to themselves that very veto power by striking particular sections of a law while allowing the remainder to stay in effect, a form that congress didn't pass and a president didn't sign, essentially assuming legislative powers not granted to them by the Constitution.
Line item veto? They ruled it unconstitutional.. We have this thing called Article 1, Section 7, clauses 2 & 3 of the COTUS.
So you're saying it's an exercise in futility to bother to write a law down, if a judge or group of judges can completely alter its operation and meaning or just erase parts of it. I mean if the folks that wrote them, debated them and voted on them and the president that signed them could't have possibly as smart as some lawyer/s in robe/s decades later. And you're OK with that?
Enough word games, do you agree with the courts redefining the meanings in a 240 year old document based on modern definitions? A simple yes or no is all that's required.
You can't have it both ways, if one part of the document is irrelevant, then all is. Didn't you just agree that Article 5 is the appropriate way to change the Constitution, or is that only when it's convenient?