Dear Editor, ‘ ‘ ‘ The Oct. 3 Political Point-CounterPoint’ columns about the Supreme Court… Dear Editor, ‘ ‘ ‘ The Oct. 3 Political Point-CounterPoint’ columns about the Supreme Court seemed to miss the crux of the matter entirely. Shane Levy argues for a ‘living’ Constitution, adding that the Constitution should be interpreted in such a way as to fight social and economic injustice in modern times. The only objection Bart Wischnowski seems to raise is that fighting social and economic injustice often entails violating the principle that all Americans should get equal protection under the law, rather than some people being more protected than others. ‘ ‘ ‘ What Wischnowski only hinted at, I want to state in no uncertain terms: A ‘living’ Constitution is a constitution in name only. Any interpretation that depends on factors other than the meaning of the document’s writers is nothing more than politics ‘mdash; and especially in today’s day and age, we can’t afford to play politics with our best protection from tyranny. The framers were not oblivious to the fact that changing times would call for changing government. That is why they included an amendment process. ‘ ‘ ‘ Sure, the Constitution was written in a spirit of equality, but if our president, representatives, senators and Supreme Court justices violate the letter of the law every day, how can we expect the spirit to survive? Grant Babcock School of Arts and Sciences