Do think judges should interpret the constitution to meet the times or decide based on what the founding?

these aren't mutually exclusive

the constitution paints many broad freedoms - equality, speech, religion, etc.

it is up to today's courts to determine what this means in today's society

edit: the founding father's intention was that the judges interpret the constitution to meet the times

otherwise it is a useless document, as it was not written to foresee every possible circumstance

They need to be able to do both. The world is a totally different place then it was back in 1789. As such we can interpret the Constitution 100% the same we did back then. That said at the same time if we totally disregard what the Founders thought then the document becomes useless. The best we can do is read the journals, diaries memoirs, etc of the Founding Fathers along with the documents like the Federalist Papers and the Constitution and base our decisions off the question "How would the Founding Fathers feel about this if they could have foreseen that." This is especially for the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 8th Amendments.

Good question but impossible to answer here.

I wrote a 15 page term paper on the subject and barely scratched the surface.

[# 1 Interpreting the Constitution of the United States

* 1.1 The contextualist approach

* 1.2 The developmentalist approach

* 1.3 The doctrinalist approach

* 1.4 The originalist approach

* 1.5 The structuralist approach

* 1.6 The textualist and strict constructionist approach]

This is just the jumping off point and it doesn't even address the canons of interpretation, which are the accepted rules in Judiciary circles on HOW to interpret legalese.

The above "approaches" are what Presidents look at when picking Justices.

The approach that a Justice professes is what the press translates into "conservative" or "liberal.

Justices don't really fall along political lines so much as "approach" lines.

I think the Constitution should be applied as intended by the Founding Fathers. They wrote what they wrote. The vast majority of it is clear beyond debate, and the remainder falls into categories about which there exist copious notes of their deliberations from which to discern their intent.

That's why basing a decision on the "penumbra of rights emanating from the Bill of Rights" makes me cringe. It's the Constitution, it's not a crystal ball to be consulted like an oracle.

So, basically, you're saying you want to see if history will repeat itself by getting away from the underlying ideas the founding fathers gave thought to when framing the Constitution? (That IS what you're saying.)

Two plus two is four on Earth, on Mars, on Pluto and in France. An oppressive regime is an oppressive regime, today, just like it was back in 1789. The way the framers intended things is the way the Constitution should be interpreted, because if it changes to "what is relevant today," which is tantamount to "what is popular today," then we're screwed for sure.

If you cannot depend on the meaning of the law you have anarchy. Laws need to be applied to everyone equally not what ever the judge feels like the day your case is before him.

The constitution can be changed by the legislature, not the judiciary.

Based on the Founding principles. The Constitution is not a "living document".

The basic outline is just as applicable to today as it was back then.

Jefferson wanted a Revolution every generation to constitutional principles. Revolutions must be peaceful if violence can be avoided, but they must happen.

If you're not gonna read it as it's written why bother having a Constitution? Anybody can make stuff up, I don't have to go to law school for that.

the founding fathers thought that only white men should make laws and slavery was just fine with them

we must always adapt to the changing times in order to survive