[BP2]

>>> wouldn’t a strict interpretation say that the founders were dealing with the situation of citizenship at the time that the constitution was adopted? In other words they were not thinking about 200 years later

No, that would be a looser interpretation - or Revisionism. You know like, "our Framers didn't understand the crime we'd have today. We don't need that part in the 4th Amendment about Search and Seizure anymore. If our police need to look in a house that may have drugs, they can kick the door down and confiscate the evidence to check it back in their CSI lab without cause, and without a warrant. After all, 200 years ago, they did not know the problems we'd face today...

Unfortunately, last time I checked, the Constitution does not have lungs or a heartbeat, i.e., it's NOT a living document.

[thesetruths]

But it CAN be changed through ammendment.

[BP2]

What?? You mean Barack is not Constitutionally-qualified to be President?

That's not fair!!!

[Fundamentally Fair]

We don't need that part in the 4th Amendment about Search and Seizure anymore.

It is scary how many Freepers woudl agree with that....

[j_tull]

that would be a looser interpretation

The one time "looser" is used properly on this forum, when "loser" the most frequently (and granted, now intentionally misspelled word on the forum) would be more appropriate.