There are strict constructionists, (and I consider myself one of them), and then there are constitutional absolutionists who want to wear 1700s blinders and ignore what the Founders would have clearly permitted had technology advanced to today's levels.
There are a lot of wealth redistribution programs in this country from welfare to farm subsidies that I don't think have any plausible basis on a federal level when looking at the Constitution.
But a constitutional reading that says we should defend ourself against bin Laden by unleashing pirates is just plain looney tunes.
Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Army installations are indeed appropriated two years at a time. There would be certain inefficiencies in doing so, but most land-based projects could be subdivided into pieces such that a partially-completed project would still have some utility. By contrast, a partially-built boat or airplane would be pretty much useless (especially since much of the interior has to be built before the hull can be made watertight).
It's possible that Congress has avoided any extended appropriations for the Air Force. Perhaps some other FReepers more knowledgeable than I can elaborate. On the other hand, if that's the case I would suggest that a Constitutional Amendment establishing procedures for longer-term appropriations could greatly improve efficiency and help to ensure projects get completed in timely fashion.
Finally, a "true" conservative Cindy Sheehan can embrace.
Post 168: "It's about divining their intent if they were writing the document today..."
Post 174: "There are strict constructionists, (and I consider myself one of them)..."
These two theories of Constitutional interpretation are at odds with each other. You can't hold them both simultaneously (unless you suffer from multiple personality disorder).
Strict constructionists don't think it is possible to divine original intent and focus on the what the document says, not on what the original intent might be. This neatly sets aside whose original intent one is supposed to be divining since Jefferson and Hamilton and Madison (for example) had many and varied disagreements on what powers a Federal government should properly hold.
Original intentists don't give a hoot about what the text says. They only care about what they currently think the various authors of the Constitution might have wanted it to say. This is a very slipperly slope, since one can argue pretty much any interpretation, leaving open the question, why have a written Constitution at all?
jas3