Should The Courts Seek The Original Meaning Of The Constitution

I don’t think the courts should seek the original meaning of the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution were intelligent people. They designed our Constitution to stand the test of time. They wrote the constitution not only to address their current issues, but to establish the basic principles that would sustain a new nation for the future. Today this can be broken down once again to a Republican vs Democratic debate. About 69 percent of Republicans say the justices should base their rulings on the Constitution’s original meaning rather than on what it means in current times. About 70 percent of Democrats say the court should base its rulings on an understanding of the Constitution’s meaning in current times.
The Framers wanted a constitution

The Framers thought majority rule to be the best system of government, but they also knew it was imperfect. They understood that political majorities may be tempted to enact laws that establish their own authority. Framers intended courts to play a central role in addressing these concerns. When supporters of the original Constitution argued in 1789 that a bill of rights would be pointless because political majorities would step on its guarantees, Thomas Jefferson responded that this argument ignored “the legal check” that could be exercised by the courts. When the Framers said "Men” in the Constitution it often meant males only. Like excluding women from voting. At the time it made sense to them, but it wouldn’t fit in today’s world. When they talked about freedom of the Press, they were thinking of paper documents, but that doesn't mean that the government should then have free rein to censor and control electronic communication. Over the years, there have been amendments to the Constitution, and most of them have stood the test of time. If there were no amendments, there would be no guarantee of free speech, religion, and there might even still be