For example, in the original Founding Documents, black people could be enslaved and counted as 3/5 of a person. We fixed that later because the Constitution is a living document. Increasing dependency? Not in the documents, and is (to me) more of a discussion of policy/policies.

Passing the 13th amendment, etc. after the Civil War was done by following the process laid out by the Constitution, and not the whim of a judge. That's how it should be done. Proponents of the "living Constitution" tend to believe that the Constitution can be interpreted in all sorts of ways. I'm an Originalist. There is a proper way to go about exacting change if that's the desire.

When you don't have an agreed upon set of rules you might as well be playing Calvinball on the playground.
Roe v. Wade was an example of that, so was the Kennedy decision around gay marriage. The Constitution is silent on both topics. Regardless of which side you come down on in the debate there is a right way and a wrong way to go about changing the country and both of those decisions happen to be the wrong way to do it.