[AmericanVictory]

I don’t think that there is a case that says that the intent of the framers is of no consequence in ascertaining what is meant in a constitutional phrase. There is no “plain meaning” rule with regard to the Constitution as there is with regard to statutes. By contrast there a innumerable decisions delving into what the intent of the Framers was.

[Ronin]

I’d like to thank everyone for contributing to this thread. There has been some personality issues, but for the most part, everyone has kept their comments on the issue at hand and I am forced (reluctantly) to modify my position based on what I have learned.

Oh well. There are plenty of other reasons to despise the bastard.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

There isn't, but original meaning is the dominant branch of originalism, and it does not care about intent. Consider Justice Scalia's words from the man himself:

You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words.

Speech