The mission of the U.S. Constitution is to enumerate and protect the rights of Americans and to provide a loose framework of ideas open to interpretation and modification. Times change, people change, society changes. The law of the land should reflect this.

But not according to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

In a visit to the University of Michigan's Law School on Tuesday, the conservative judge expounded on his belief that the Constitution has the same intentions as it did when it was originally written, and that the idea that it should constantly evolve is flawed.

"The Constitution isn't a living organism for Pete's sake," Scalia told the audience in U-M's 1,100-seat Rackham Auditorium. "It's a document."

Scalia is looking at the Constitution in a literal sense; what he fails to understand is it's more than just a be-all, end-all piece of paper. It's a concept, a set of ideas and ideals that has always been, and should continue to be, evolving.

According to Scalia, the Constitution should be interpreted in an "originalist" manner, the way 18th century society would have done. This would be a fine plan - if we were to all jump in a time machine and jet back 200 years to when slavery was still in practice, women were not allowed to vote and dignified men wore powdered wigs.

But we live in the year 2004 and the face of our nation has undergone drastic changes since the country's inception. Our founders could not have possibly envisioned what their great republic would look like 200 years in the future. This is why 21st century America should not be ruled under strict interpretations of 18th century ideals.

The Constitution exists to govern at the will of the people, and over time the will of people changes. Scalia and other "originalists" need to wake up and pull their antiquated interpretation of the Constitution out of the past. The present and future needs of our nation depend on it.