Is it not? The Constitution is the last line of defense between the government and the people. It outlines the most fundamental of human rights, and the fact that all laws made in the U.S. Should respect those rights. If we are to, as the people, state that this document should be interpreted subjectively, then we are defeating the purpose for the Constitution in the first place. It was designed to be a document that stood the test of time.
As the title says, the Constitution is meant to be seen as an absolute guideline for our government. Albeit it isn't perfect, it didn't limit government enough perfect examples were term limits for presidents and term limits for Congress Members. To view the Constitution as a "living document" is leave it's interpretation up to those in power, which is completely counter-productive of what it was originally meant to do.
The Constitution exists as a legally binding contract for our government. It is not meant to be manipulated, changed (with the exception of amendments), or even loosely interpreted. Doing so results in tremendous government overreaching. Bankruptcy, constant wars, and infringement on liberties will all ensue. We see all of these consequences of ignoring our Constitution already. A 16 trillion dollar debt, military intervention all over the Middle East, and the NSA scandal are perfect examples.
Our rights as citizens still have meaning, this myth that the Constitution is out of date because it was written in the 18th century is ridiculous, the ideas are still very much intact, freedom of speech, religion, arms, press, privacy, and many other rights are still used and threatened today, so the idea that they can be changed because they are "out of date" is absurd.
The Constitution should be viewed as a living document. Article V of the document provides a process by which it may be amended. Also, from a more practical perspective, the world is constantly evolving, and new technologies are emerging; a static set of laws won't work. As Jefferson wrote, "No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law."
For the Constitution to be the document we look to for our law, we need it to be malleable enough to change with the times. When our country first got on its feet, we weren't ready to accept a number of aspects of equality (ex. Those who were not landowners couldn't vote). The government must also be flexible enough to rule as technologies change, attitudes change, etc. If we truly believe that the Constitution should be absolute, we wouldn't even have the Bill of Rights.
By saying it's a "living document" it is generally meant that we are able to change it without revolution or war. It is stated in article V that we are able to change it. This why it is called a living document. There's not much more to it. Interpretations has nothing to do with it, although interpretation can change based on new evidence. It is therefore important to realize that the constitution was meant to be changed. We still have to follow it, but we can change it as well.
The constitution is living, evolving document. Article V of the constitution grants the government the power to alter the constitution as it seems fit. Those that have the power to alter the constitution are elected members of government, so the argument that government has no authority over our rights is utter rubbish.
Furthermore, human philosophy and human laws much change with new revelations in society, new discoveries about what works best for a community of people that need to find a way to live and work with each other. Just like technology, science, and medicine transform ( and have been transforming for thousands of years ) so should human philosophy and human laws to fit optimal human satisfaction within a framework of laws.
The constitution is definitely a living, evolving document and should the alternative perspective every control this nation it will be the end of us all!