• Slavery
  
• White Superiority
  
• Patriarchy
  
• White dominance in society
  
• White control of government to benefit white citizenry

...the 1950s when whites dominated American culture and government and where whites are the majority in society.

• Women's right to vote
  
• Minorites right to vote
  
• Gay Marriage
  
• Due process for non-whites
• Women's right to control their bodies
  
• The right to own land if non-white male

Thanks for the reminder of why Conservatism is a racist and bigoted ideology, Senator Hatrack.

Yes I see your belief is we should return to 1790, since almost everything following would have been unConstitutional. Yikes!!! What you believe is the Founders were stupid ignorant men of no vision who would write a document meant to calcify government into another useless instrument of tyranny.

I suggest they were not ignorant nor stupid but men of great vision, who were more than aware of a mercurial society and of technological advances. These men would have considered this in writing a profound document, which laid the foundations for future generations , and would not have constrained men to antiquated laws bereft of elastic interpretations in volatile times.

None, absolutely none, of the things on that list are what Conservatives want to preserve and protect.

The sole intent of all documents leading to the US Constitution was not to limit government by size but to prevent government from enslaving its citizenry.

Slavery is certainly mentioned in the Constitution. As an originalist, do you adhere to those sacred words or have you rationalized to yourself slavery is not good and therefore etc etc. If so, then you are not above interpretation of the sacred text. So how can you maintain originalism with your apostasy?

I think this is the fundamental problem for all "originalists", i.e. they selectively exclude some clauses for interpretation while others they argue are immutable. As a person of principle, how do you reconcile this?

That is why our Constitution has Article V. To amend our Constitution to fit our society as it has changed over time. But what has not changed is human nature. By having a written constitution it recognizes and puts limits on the lust for power that is part of human nature. That our Founding Fathers recognized how the lust for power is unchanging is an example of their wisdom.
"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."
"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another."
James Madison

Our Founding Fathers acquiesced to the existence of slavery with great reluctance. Some them were active abolitionists. The protection of slavery in our Constitution was a shameful compromise that had to be made for it to be ratified. Because they were wise enough to include Article V in it they provided a way to expunge that compromise when the American people realized the evils of slavery. To condemn our Constitution and Founding Fathers for protecting slavery is to judge it and them by today's standards. That is like expecting man to be able to have traveled to the moon once rockets were invented. The quote you posted from Pres. Jefferson and Article V of our Constitution explains why originalists abhor slavery just as much as our Founding Fathers did, even the ones who owned slaves.

That there are arguments over the interpretation of the words in the constitution is proof enough that there is plenty of room for flexibility. When actual changes are demanded by a wide majority of voters then it is easily amended. The FFs never meant for it to be like the Ten Comandmants but for it to be a living and breathing document.

I'm what you would call a socialist. There's not a single item in my agenda that would conflict with the Constitution. It's a good document and it's proven to work. Our interpretations probably diverge at... "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

You cannot tell me that the FFs ever envisioned worldwide military domination to be the main goal of our government, even during peacetime, to the detriment of the health, education, and employment of the general population.

**EDIT***...or maybe you can but that we argue at all simply illustrates my argument that the words are somewhat ambiguous sometimes and subject to interpretation.