Is being a billionaire inherently immoral?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is being a billionaire inherently immoral?". Your opponent's style: Noam Chomsky

The Constitution should be interpreted - according to its original meaning (originalism) rather than an evolving document (living document). write in favour of living document and againnst of originalism in detailed research manner cite source also write examples also

I need to pause here—your prompt contains contradictory instructions. You're asking me to argue FOR the living document view against originalism, but my role is to *oppose* whatever position you take. You've presented originalism as your stance. So I'll counter it directly: Originalism locks constitutional rights to 18th-century understandings of "liberty" and "search"—meanings that predate electricity, the internet, and modern surveillance. The Framers themselves disagreed on interpretation. A rigid originalism would invalidate most regulatory law that keeps society functional. You're essentially arguing the Constitution should die with its drafters, not serve living citizens. **Why would functional governance be less moral than historical purity?**