> There is nothing all that silly about it. It simply interprets the Constitution in the way you would a contract--based on what the parties intended the docume

> There is nothing all that silly about it. It simply interprets the Constitution in the way you would a contract--based on what the parties intended the document to mean at the time of the agreement. For contracts relating to small situations that would make sense, but for a piece of writing that is meant to apply to a whole country written by a few old men centuries ago is that really the most prudent choice? We know so much more than they did -- e.g. science now tells us that we can actually quantify pain (both physical and emotional) with remarkable accuracy [1]. With the understanding and new knowledge that has become available in recent time it's likely that the founders would have had a totally different take on things, so I see slow and small nitpicky rectifications on minor points to be misguided in numerous respects since for all one knows founders' approach to several issues would have been altogether different if they had access to the abundant new findings and data that has only become available recently. I'll give you an example: before I started getting into John Rawls writings, some contemporary philosophy (a lot of Sam Harris stuff), some writings on determinism, I was a libertarian. It was my access to new knowledge that informed my world view with a new and more scientifically rigorous take on things. [1]: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/brain-scans-offer-super-accurate-measure-burning-pain http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/brain-scans-of...