Just the facts

Just over two hundred years ago 55 men were given the task of creating a document that would become the fundamental law of the land, the constitution. It was a disparate group from all the colonies and was composed of farmers, businessmen, inventors, etc. 

They fought among themselves, but overcame their differences and created the remarkable group of papers our law is based on. Before the actual ratification had occurred the state of Massachusetts had proposed the first amendment. Many more were proposed and then President James Madison sifted and culled his way to a group of 12 that proposed en masse on Sept 25, 1789...about six months after ratification. That is the single shortest change action ever to occur in the history of the document. 

Madison presented twelve amendments, ten of which were ratified and known as the bill of rights. One more was subsequently approved, 200 years later and went into effect in 1992. Amendments have been proposed, voted on, passed and even repealed. Many simply go into limbo...IE: Women's rights. The irony of the Supreme Court issuing an edict giving rights to the Gay populace while the majority of the nation(females) go without is pretty hard to miss. That one simply falls on the heads of the elected representatives that collectively bicker, wail, moan and do nothing.

So here is my question; just how do proclaim yourself to be a strict constitutionalist when the writers weren't? How do you divine their intent when they were so obviously changing it? Franklin was still flying kites, there was no electricity...these were not prescient beings. They could not foretell the future. In the current culture many are busy tearing down the these long dead men for their actions and way of living in their own era. Is Jefferson any less brilliant because of the way he lived? No, but even he didn't expect to be interpreted from the grave.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should have sufficed, but didn't. Our politicians fight, but do not resolve. Pander, but accomplish nothing. Talk the talk, but run from answers that would see them out of office. 

It's a remarkable document, the Constitution...it was changeable, even before its inception. Therefore; a "strict" constitutionalist should believe in change where needed,not rigid formats that do not apply to the current world. Do you think B. Franklin would have liked an i-phone?