Let me give you an example, Chad.
The 2nd amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, leaving aside the militia part, how do you define "arms"? Most people would, today, say that anything from a knife to an ICBM ("arms" control treaties?) constitutes an "arm".
But you can't own, say, a .50 cal machine gun, or a mortar, or that ICBM legally. How so? The constitution clearly says you can!
The supreme court has ruled on this many times, and if you read between the lines, they did this: they said, "ok, in the day of the founders, "arms" meant low rate of fire slug-throwers. That's what's allowed."
You can accurately say that the supreme court (relatively uncontroversially, nobody wants the neighborhood n'er do well testing out their new mortar) *defied the literal interpretation of the constitution* in this case.
And it happens all the time. And it should. A quarter-millennium old document can't anticipate modern technology or mores or society.