Whole world of semantics here, but what the heck. If you question the term "living," then let's simply say that it's a document that contains within it the mechanism through which it may be modified. "Living" is often used as a metaphorical term for this because life contains within it the mechanism through which it may be modified, as well, but hey, suit yourself. I won't be a stickler for words - clearly, we both agree that Article 5 provides a mechanism through which the document can be changed. This poses a few questions, though: 1) Where do you see evidence that the Founding Fathers saw a difference between "amending something" and "altering it radically"? 2) Where does Article 5 prohibit the process for passing an amendment be used to "alter (the constitution) radically"? Or do you see evidence in the Constitution elsewhere? 3) Where do you find evidence that the first ten amendments' repeal would be a "radical alteration," whereas the repeal of the 18th, for example, would not be? Or are these subjective rather than factual determinations on your part, just as referring to a document that contains the mechanisms through which it can be modified as "living" is evidently a subjective rather than factual determination on mine?