[SteveA]

Some disagreements over interpretation of the Constitution are inevitable, though we can rather safely agree there's an unchanging text to it. The arguments aren't over the text, but the intent of the agreement. We could read the text in many different contexts of intent. Someone could likely intend to show how the Constitution was intended to create slavery and maybe even convince themselves of this "truth". I'm certain some federal lawyers for Bush could agree that they'd "legally proved" that the Constitution allows all manners of invasion into everyones private lives but of course this would result in many problems and conflicts.

The importance of the Constitution is truly in the efforts placed into resolving disputes over what an acceptable form of government would be for most the people at the time. Truthfully only a small number of people directly signed the document, though the wisdom contained in it has been seen as valuable by many people over time. It's not an infallible document and the meaning can be warped in various ways by people, but the reality still exists that it reflects the detailed results of the thoughts of many people, complied over hundreds (or even thousands) of years into what's a good "gameplan" for government. Sure, it could be made better but recognize that the Constitution represents an agreement between people (not simply government but citizens) and individuals or small 'elite' groups of them shouldn't assume a warped interpretation of this will automatically be agreeable to everyone else. Technically, the provisions for alterations to the Constitution are already explicitly spelled out, as the manner in which Constitutional Amendments are added, and it requires a very large majority support of Congress as well as the states and their legislations to change. This process has been respected in the past, though currently this Amendment process is being continually ignored. Not recognizing this need to govern by the consent of the people (or at least a large majority of them) is one way to destroy this agreement and see chaos erupt over this conflict. So people are free to interprete things however they want, but that liberty goes more than one way and a "loose" interpretation can be seen as a "violation" of it by someone else, who can no longer be automatically expected to agree to the new terms or be supportive of them.

If people really want to defend the Constitution, defending the original intents of the agreement is the key. For those wanting to destroy it, you can simply reinterprete it to mean something opposite to the original intent and then watch everyone disagree and toss the new revision out as worthless and non-binding.

Alternately, the Consitution could be viewed in a more symbolic sense, as an agreement between many people over the general character of legitimate actions between themselves. This agreement is upheld to the extent that people continue to see benefit from it but if the intent is warped into implying it justifies placing excessive burdens on those supporting it, then the value and support of the agreement decay and can be lost. Noone that signed it is still alive today, nor have most parents signed their children into virtual slavery to anyone and if people attempt to imply the Constitution allows this, then you'll find people 'opting out' of their support for an abusive relationship.