The interpretations of the Constitution whether by Presidents, the Congress, or federal courts make it a living document. Of course, abiding by a textualist interpretation (or not) is often a function of one's ideology. Both sides do it going back to at least Chief Justice Roger Taney and his Dred Scot case opinion. Few on either side would object to substantive due process interpretations of the Constitution. Although some delegates to the Constitutional Convention were concerned with what we now call the elastic clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the majority of them approved it. I think that most of them would feel comfortable with the way we've interpreted the Constitution.