But now you're making an argument in favor of the letter of the law, aren't you?
When have I ever made an argument for anything else?
I would personally very much like constitutions to mean exactly what they say, and to be formally amended to mean correct new things when it's decided they should mean something different than they did previously.
In an interpreted constitution, why wouldn't they be able to decide who is or isn't a person under the Constitution?
Yes, that's kinda my point. For the whole history of the United States from its very beginning, you've had an "interpreted constitution" whose words the Supreme Court interpreted to mean whatever it was politically useful for it to mean, disregarding its actual plainly spoken words.
And there's no example better than how for an entire century, the first century of USA's existence people pretended that slavery was allowed under the constitution, when clearly it was outlawed under the 4th and 5th amendment.
If you want a non-living, non-evolving, non-speciously interpreted Constitution, sure, I'd personally LOVE that. But don't tell me you ever *actually* had that before at any time in the history of the United States, from its very founding.
Declaring a fetus a non-person is actually much less specious than declaring black people non-persons just for the sake of those amendments, and simultaneoulsy counting them as persons for the sake of article 1, section 2. It takes a good amount of double-think, black people they be persons whenever we need them to be, no? Slaves are useful that way, persons for purpose of article 1, not actually persons for purposes of the bill of rights.