Is the Constitution a Living Document Today?

“Living” documents – putting into use documents written hundreds, even thousands of years ago.

So many people have heard of and used the phrase “living document”.  To define it for those who may not be familiar with the term, a living document (as defined by Wikipedia) is “a document which may be continually edited and updated by either a limited or unrestricted group”. An example of a document that should be represented as a living document is the United States Constitution. Our Constitution we would think is the idea of a “living document” but it is not at all because the Constitution itself cannot be altered.  At all. The text within the Constitution is the same as when it was written by the colonies in the late 1700’s. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights have not been edited, but reinterpreted.  And depending on the Justices and the make up of the Supreme Court, it has been reinterpreted by many people over the  200+ years of US History. It's  considered by many to be a living document.  I, personally, believe that it kind of has to be a living document.  We have shown that it cannot be interpreted based only on the words written in Constitution because it was left some what vague in certain areas.  For example: The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are guaranteed and are very important, but you are going to have arguments on what those words mean. Some others are also vague and the meanings of them have to be interpreted in order for them to apply to the population today.
So is it really a "living document" or not?
Please let us all know how you feel.