The eleventh amendment was a "bug fix" to the constitution. The original constitution had wording that accidentally allowed a citizen to file a suit against a state directly in the supreme court. Nobody in the government intended for this to be possible, but citizens began suing states and this conduct was upheld as constitutional.

At the time (1794), this was resolved by amending the constitution to make the desired change. If the same unintended wording had gone unnoticed until today, it is very likely that the supreme court would simply decide that the outcome as written was not desirable and throw out the suits.

Good example. Opposing "law as a living construct" doesn't mean the law shouldn't be amended or "we should drop the other amendments", it means the courts should follow the law as written (including amendments) and not redefine it as they choose.

So a civil law system, rather than common law? Yeah they have that in France, it comes with its own issues (very slow to adapt - women only got the vote in the 60s, and the death penalty was still there until the 80s if I remember correctly)

Not just in France. Most of Europe and the Americas use a civil law system, except for former British colonies.[1] This includes many nations that gave women the right to vote before the US did. And as for the death penalty, well, the US still has that.[2] So your examples haven't convinced me that civil law is slow to adapt.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#/media/File:Map_of_...

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dustin_Higgs

Not civil law vs common law, or, common law vs continental law [1]

In using the Constitution as a living document which can be interpreted by an activist judge, rather than the constitution as written [2], as passed by the states/amendment (originalism), interpreted by precedents from the collection of rulings, and caselaw.

[1] https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-la...

[2] https://www.swindlelaw.com/2017/10/originalism-living-consti...