Yeah, it's not like the founding fathers designed the Constitution to be amended. It's not like they established a judicial body specifically to determine its meaning. It's not like they intended for future generations to improve upon the laws of the land time made them less relevant. /Sarcasm I facepalmed so hard when I heard this question in the third debate. The founding fathers designed the Constitution so that it would be a living document. Don't believe me? Let's ask them. Thomas Jefferson: [quote]We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.[/quote] Barbarous ancestors? He's not... He's not talking about himself is he? Of course not. The founding fathers were wise men. Unless... Wait, did he mean that the progression of society would mean that those who used to be the intellectual elite could be considered primitives? No, surely not. James Madison: [quote]Had the convention attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect; the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the Constitution relates; accommodated too not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce.[/quote] No. Surely if the founding fathers had wanted to make laws about things they knew literally nothing about, they would have, right? Clearly the reason the Constitution doesn't address things that don't exist is because the founding fathers purposely omitted them. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. However, before I go I'd like to point out that the Bill of Rights was not a part of the original Constitution. Tl;dr: Using an unaltered constitution from 200+ years ago is like trying to play Call of Duty Ghosts on a SNES. There's no way it could possibly work an no sane person would ever want to try it.