[RobbyS]

Technically the Constiytution isn't a (social) contract, but is it a legal instrument. We couldn't survive if the courts monkeyed around with most legal instruments the way they do with the Constitition. But blame John Marshall, who was the first to put spin on the words of the Constituition.

[Dead Corpse]

"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 32.

For an example of what those debates were... click here...

Elliot's Debates contain a wealth of information on exactly what the Founders meant. Without having to resort to later judicial activism and reinterpretation.

[MamaTexan]

Technically the Constiytution isn't a (social) contract, but is it a legal instrument.

I never said it was a 'social' contract.

If one reads the assorted treatise and legal writings quoted by the Founders (along with the writing of the Founders themselves) it is plain that the Constitutional contract, formed by the civil entities of the States, created a statutory entity of the United States with express local federal powers and limited national powers.

We couldn't survive if the courts monkeyed around with most legal instruments the way they do with the Constitution.

True, but they can 'monkey' with it all they like. Since anything repugnant to the Constitution is automatically null and void, their 'monkeying' doesn't change the letter or the law of the Constitution, it only tries to confuse it.