system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I don't think we should really care what the original writers of a constitution thought. CMV

I do not believe that the "original intent" of the writers of any constitution should matter in our modern interpretation of it. I live in Canada, so it is a little different, since some parts of our constitution are from 1867 and some are from 1982, but I think the same would apply to, for example, the US constitution. I believe a constitution is a guideline and a fundamental outline for a system of governance, establishing the basic rules under which it should function, but I believe that that definition should evolve with time and that the original intent, while having been important to the original writing, should not be important to the modern interpretation. For example, in Canada we have the "living tree" doctrine, in which the spirit of the Constitution rather than the literal text is considering to be more important. Although the Constitution does not mention sexual orientation, it has been considered to be a part of it by most of the legal system in recent years, because of that doctrine. The whole debate in the US about what the Founding Fathers would think of the world now just seems silly and stupid to me. Change My View.
gpt
Your argument is a contradiction.

"We should care about the Constitution, but we shouldn't care about what the Constitution was intended to mean."

Without consideration for what your founders intended, you're left with politicians and their lawyers, nit-picking the language of your founding documents, seeing what they can *technically* get away with.