[The Urban Sombrero]

I should have posted this part of the response first, but you'll still get the point. During the hearings for Gorsuch I heard Senator Dianne Feinstein in rather chillingly overt fashion, proclaim her adherence to the 'living document' method of interpreting the US Constitution. Which means of course it could conceivably mean anything from one day to the next.

This is the fight between those who trust in original intent and those who want to change original intent in favor of light and transient cause. I don't quite think the cognitive prowess of Dianne Feinstein quite rises to the level of Jefferson. Call me biased.

Either you cherish Framer's intent ("Advise and consent") or you do when it favors your tribe and don't when it doesn't, the very tableau of partisanship we now see and have seen, both parties, all the time.

"Original intent," hopefully, in ideal, meant justice for all. If it did not (as a casual observer would think at a glance circa the 1780's), then thank goodness for those who saw in the principles their highest calling. I do not worship our Framers, TRT, nor do I villify them. They were men, and as such, subject to frailty and foible. Now, speaking frankly, you may hanker for a time whiter and more male-dominated and more at least "mouth professingly" Christian, but in my view that brand of "original intent" needs to be gone. Now, before you squall, I am not calling you a racist or a misogynist, but simply pointing out that if "original intent" is judged by the conditions of that time under the Constitution, and folk long for "original intent," well, Houston, we've got a problem.