How did he do that? Did you actually read what he wrote and in the context in which he wrote it?
You obviously didn't the original source.
Why?
I don't believe you the original source either.
What he said didn't violate this oath. You should read the original statement, so you have the context.
He would and Richard Posner would support him. I don't think he said what you think he said.
No he isn't. He very clearly said what he thought.
For everyone to whom I wrote should read the original source, I'll just make it easy for you. Richard Posner did not say anything about getting rid of the Constitution. He was making a "living Constitution" argument. Not suprisingly, the article linked in the OP "conveniently" cuts Posner's quote right before he said this, "Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14[SUP]th[/SUP]), do not speak to today.
David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18[SUP]th[/SUP]-century guys were worrying about."
And, for his part, David Strauss said,
In other words, those of you calling him an idiot for thinking he said the Constitution has no value or that he is violating his oath or whatever probably need to do more research next time. What he seems to be saying (in my opinion) is more in support of living Constitution.