Are Advocates of Living Constitutions Traitors?

Here's a brief argument that they are:

Dear Professor Jeffries,
Only one (1) U.S. Constitution exists, the Constitution as ratified by the whole People sitting in convention. Terms like 'judicial philosophy' are just deceptive ways of saying that the judicial officer is creating his own constitution. Such creativity comprises the high felony of Article III Treason because that judicial officer is levying war against the People. Prosecutions for Treason maintain the Constitution's uniqueness.

I'd like to see the argument backed up more thoroughly, but the author is accusing those who broadly interpret Constitutional language of treason and is advocating prosecution for it. Good idea? Bad idea? Is there precedence for such a thing? And where in fact do we get clear guidelines for how the document is to be interpreted (from the document's authors – not latter day commentators) and how those who misinterpret the document should be treated? Did they intend a hard and fast interpretation to be adhered to in perpetuity or did they anticipate that future generations would be able to apply the document as needed to contemporary problems?