Actually it is. If a majority(or sometimes not even that, but a plurality) elects some dolt who decides along with the other handful of morons/tyrants to enact some law, then it isn't any more moral or constitutional.
As for people talking about exactly what was on the books in the late 1700s, and quoting decisions, it's not relevant to the true issue. Do we REALLY want to go back to that time? Let's see, I'd be the son of a slave, therefore a slave, or at best an oppressed minority. Hey, instead of being infinitely more moral and intelligent than you, I could be a stableboy.
This is the same country that had the Dred Scott decision, right? lol
Thanks, but the Founders and the Constitution are just helpful guides, but I wouldn't suggest we follow them as absolute moral/political exemplars.
Guess what, it took a Constitutional Amendment to expurgate racial chattel slavery from the United States for good. Slavery is woven into the original Constitution... it's euphemized as the "peculiar institution." And it's clear from history that slavery was construed permissively by the original Constitution. That's how seriously we should take what the Constitution can -- and CAN'T -- do. One thing it CAN'T do in its current form is grant a right to ubiquitous porn. You want to put a porn amendment in the Constitution, well go right ahead and try. But our First Amendment isn't it. "Freedom of the press" was never even dreamed to be construed that way until the days of woman-abusing Hefner.