> where we should insert things into the Constitution that aren't there, "because change." Not sure if sarcastic, but how is it possible not to do this? e.g.

> where we should insert things into the Constitution that aren't there, "because change." Not sure if sarcastic, but how is it possible not to do this? e.g. the 1st Amendment grants the right to a "free press". Are there really constitutional literalists who believe that because the word "press" as used in the 18th century contemplates the operation of a machine that imprints ink onto dead trees that we should not consider wsj.com within the scope of its protection? Or consider that the Constitution uses male-gendered pronouns to describe the requirements and duties for the offices of Congress and the President. Are we then to infer that only men can hold these offices? It seems to me that everybody interpolates the Constitution to some extent, and the difference is a question of degree. So quite frankly I'm puzzled how it can be an accusation against someone that they interpret the Constitution freely, as if the real moral high ground is a the belief that e.g. judicial review doesn't exist.