"The whole point of a court is to interpret the Constitution with new facts and situations that arise."
You're describing the "living constitution"[1] view, which has not been the dominant position among Supreme Court justices for some time.
Now they're all "strict constructionists"[2], who think the opposite of what you describe: that the constitution should be interpreted just as it was written.
You're describing the "living constitution"[1] view, which has not been the dominant position among Supreme Court justices for some time.
Now they're all "strict constructionists"[2], who think the opposite of what you describe: that the constitution should be interpreted just as it was written.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism