Amendment is of course part of the intended process, but revision based on whatever current judge is interpreting isn't.
You can have a living document with amendment being the agent of change, not the judges.
Amendment - as I understand it - is a major process and possibly limited to the big questions. I do think that amendment of a written constitution should be, not difficult, but a process of slow and lengthy deliberation. Since popular opinion is easily inflamed (I'm half-remembering those words from somewhere, I hope to hell I'm not referencing Goebbels). An amendment shouldn't lie solely with legislators. Truth is I don't know how the process should be mixed up between the various stakeholders (jargon watch! I wrote "stakeholders"!) but no one grouping should have ultimate control of the process to the exclusion of others.
Interpretation is not amendment. Interpretation is part of the process of application. I don't see how anyone other than a country's highest court can do that. It is the duty of the judges.
So you're saying that depending on who the judge is the same law could and should be interpreted differently? And at different times, depending on what's going on in the world, it could be interpreted differently?
Wow. Uhm, no. That's not what judges do.
Judges, not judge. Why do you think the Supreme Court nomination/ratification process can be so contentious at times.
The way I was taught was the Judicial Branch interpreted the laws based on the constitution, said laws constitutionality and limits. Unfortunately this has not always happened, primarily when the intent as described in the founding father's writings are misinterpreted or ignored.