I'll go with original intent. do otherwise would mean no intent.

Emphatically yes!!

Human nature doesn't change. The constitution was written to deal with the unfortunate sides of human nature. Original intent must be followed.

Thank God for Clarence Thomas

The framers designed our Constitutional Republic such that laws would require vigorous debate and testing so that the government would not garner too much power for itself. Then they prescribed a self-correcting methodology via the 3 branches such that unconstitutional laws would be struck down and only replaced or modified after further rigorous debate. The last remedy for changing laws resorted to the amendment of the Constitution by a supermajority of the separate states. All of this designed to avoid the tyranny of excessive government. Regretfully it depended on the integrity of those in government.

I like the idea of sticking to original intent because I am a constitutional die hard. The issue does become reigning in the government to only do what is stated in the constitution against the backdrop of a document not fully be set up for todays reality. Luckily we have a path to effect change in a positive way on that document. Pass an amendment. Term Limits would be a great new amendment. It has to do with the function of the government. Some proposed amendments fail to meet that simple standard or any other for that matter.

Absolutely, examining the Constitution in light of the age in when it was written provides a better light than that lit by fear and emotional response. Despite the passage of time, the principals of it’s creation are still valid today. Governments are inherently untrustworthy in as much as they are led and operated by flawed people. The Constitution was deliberately designed to constrain the government regardless of its human executors. Understanding the reasoning for such constraints is most clearly visible when illuminated by contextual history.

Original intent. The problem with interpretation is they can very from person to person.

Yep............. It's the ONLY way to interpret the Constitution. If not we would be...................heck. Just look where we are today, Judges are ruling our Country, not the Constitution and We The People.

There is nobody in Washington DC currently that could hold a candle to the original founders. You cannot find that many smart people at one time. This country is a miracle. The Constitution was the reason. I can't imagine the shit that would be in any updated version they might come up with.

Yes.

You might gain some insight from this: [lawliberty.org]

George Orwell coined the term blackwhite in Newspeak:

"This word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that white is black, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink."

Applied to the Supreme Court it is the process by which precedence (a previous interpretation of an application of the Constitution) replaces the original meaning and context of the Constitution so that in the end, after many iterations of precedence, it may well have no relationship to the text of the Constitution.

Original intent

Original intent. If you want it to mean something different, pass a law

If I'm only given the choice between yes and no, I'd say yes then.