Originally Posted by roachboy

samcol: first off, it is still somehow interesting to me the extent to which those fine fellows at the hoover institution have managed to define everything about contemporary conservative viewpoints, including those of more conservative libertarians. the battle is still the one that pit the old-line hooverites against the new deal. the arguments are still the same too. it's kinda funny to find ourselves in 2009 repeating the debates of the early 1930s.

anyway, the most basic point is, i would expect, obvious: the american constitutional tradition was set up to respond to changing times through the mechanism of precedent as well as through the mechanisms of amendments to the constitution itself. that's how it works. that's what has allowed the united states to avoid having a constitutional crisis for over 200 years--more rigidly written constitutions operating in contexts close to that dreamt about by strict constructionists have had repeated crises.

it doesn't really matter what people in the late 18th century foresaw in terms of the subsequent 200 years. unless you want to attribute some super-human status to the framers, which seems of a piece with the notion that Intent is some kind of transcendent category that can be appealed to in ways that function to juxtapose it to history with the result that history looses.
the framers probably didn't foresee capitalism: i dont see you arguing that therefore capitalism should be abolished.
the framers didn't foresee automobiles: does that mean there should be no laws around cars?
the framers didn't foresee industrial agriculture: does that mean all food safety regulations should be abolished?