"Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again". (FDR via Epstein and Walker 1) In my personal opinion, no wonder FDR was an Anti Semite: that is, he treated the Constitution-- a living document-- and the Bible-- a fixed document-- as on the same par: that is, he thought that each was a document into which could read his own interpretation and thus implement said interpretation with the supposed support of said document. As FDR read Anti Semitism into the Bible, many have read their own interpretations into the Constitution.
The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall correctly stated that "the framers 'could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed be a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman the descendant of an African slave.'" (ibid. 6) The Constitution was inherently "'defective from the start'" (ibid.) because of its status as a living, amendable document and scarily framed by WASP Supremacist, Unitarian, and Deist misogynists who treated the Bible in the same way that FDR later would-- and by treating the Bible as such, they framed the Constitution based on their inherently UnJewish and UnChristian concept of (for a lack of a better term) Judeo Christianity (or at least Judeo-Christian priniciples).
As in the awful perversion of Biblical study known as modern Biblical scholarship, Constitutional scholarship has produced schools of original intent, textualism, and original meaning-- all three of which (in the case of Constitutional scholarship) harken back to what the framers (often chauvinistically, WASPishly, Unitarianistically, and Deistically wanted); and stare decisis, polling jurisdictionism, and pragmatism-- all three of which seek to interpret and implement the Constitution within the context of changing times and other factors.
For example and for comparison: