[rayiner]

> Second, the constitution may be written but the interpretation is always changing

It’s okay if the change is because you think the new interpretation is closer to what the constitution originally meant.

It’s democratically illegitimate to change the interpretation otherwise. A written constitution is already an impingement on democracy. But how can it be that whoever is doing the interpreting is allowed to restrict democratically adopted laws in ways the constitution didn’t originally intend to restrict them?

[staticman2]

There is no right to vote in the constitution as written and interpreted in the 1700s. There is also no guarantee of freedom of speech. The first amendment was considered a rule that only applied federally.

What's democratically illegitimate is everything you wrote in this thread.

If your state government threw you in jail for what you just wrote that would be perfectly aligned with your "original understanding" interpretation of the U.S constitution.