I haven't read every post as closely as I might, but I do have a small issue I wish to raise with you and others.
You and most of the other posters have referenced that old phrase, "original intent" which I look upon as a trap.
Madison, amongst many others, drew the distinction differently.
Madison steadily maintained the standard to uphold was original understanding. And, whose "understanding" was it to which he was referring? The people(s) of the states in ratification.
Why is this thing "intent" a trap?
It refers to a gifted group's (the founders) intent -- albeit a group that elites of any age can liken themselves to and additionally debate intent in a way the is far more flexible than it should be.
Understanding of a general population is, however, very definable from the writings of the time. This was a populace informed on the issues and nuances like no other. They were readers of constant pamphlets on the subject culminating in the Federalist Papers.
Understanding then relates to a people and is discernible. Intent refers to a group (law givers or law bestowers) and is more debate driven and lends itself to issues of rationalist improvement by each age's self-perceived or culturally perceived intellectually elite.
The common soldier, the simple merchant and farmer of that age is who secured my rights. And so, it is up to us to hold them, not government and not even our own keepers of intellectual power and reason.
Take this small coat, Original Understanding, and try it on. Wear it for certain days, when you can, and you will get to like it.
Perhaps you have missed this as I had until this evening. Betty has cast a giant shadow, and I sit here with a pen light and my fingers trying to make a bird with one hand and see it on the nearby wall.
Great points, KC Burke! I can agree with Madison that the standard ought to be "original understanding" (which is primarily cultural), but do note that the Framers also had an "original intent" (which has to do with the "mechanics" of their construction): To establish a polity based on the rule of law, not of men; one that is based on the consent of the governed, who remain sovereign; and to achieve this end by means of the constitutional separation and balance of powers.
So IMHO it's not an "either/or situation": It's both.
It's so good to see you again, KC! Welcome to this thread, and thank you so much for your excellent insights!