The constitution is written for a specific purpose. It is not to be ignored or altered except by the will of the people. Whether someone's heart is in the right place is not relevant. The government stands with a very specific set of rules otherwise you open the door to favoritism and fraud. If a change is needed, then it will be the will of the people through amendments, not through mood.
Strict malleable is the only legitimate way of interpreting the constitution, as it is an otherwise worthless document. In the idea of a living constitution lies an inherent lack of regard for it. If one can justify actions as constitutional to meet their own needs, then the constitution might as well not exist. As such there is a way to change the constitution through the amendment process. This is important so that no one violates the constitution, it can be changed, with the times, or opinions or for an otherwise agreeable reason. Those with the idea of a living constitution do so to bypass the protections that lie within it. The constitution is broad to serve it's purpose and yet also malleable to ensure that it adapts to changing times.
We should look at events as they happen not necessarily base thing word for word. The year is 2013 we do of course have to make some adoption so we can understand things. If we do not allow for this then perhaps things will not go as good as they should.
It is the job of our judicial system to make sure that our laws are just and in line with the times. The argument that "we have to be strict or it'll be a free for all" is a nonsense false dilemma argument. The judicial system has checks and balances for just this purpose. If the law is to continue to serve the people, which is its purpose, then those we entrust as the judiciary need to be free to interpret it within the times and situations that present themselves.