"The intent of the framers"

I was listening to a television commentator - a Democrat by the way - who was critical of a presidential candidate over his interpretation of the second amendment regarding control control.

The issue I wish to address is not the second amendment per se, but the bantering of the of the term " the intent of the framers" in addressing the meaning of this statement.

It is interesting to me how handy it is for both right and left to make this a support for their fall back position, in order to justify their assertions about a particular issue or opinion. The more conservative members of the supreme court are often bashed for using this as a reason for their position.

It appears that the issue of whether interpretation of the constitution should value this and use it as a guide to proposed legislation or in judicial decisions, or not.
Like so many points in the development of our Constitution the need for compromise trumped the clarity of language and supporting definition of intent that would prove critical in knowing the intent of the framers two hundred years, plus hence. The "necessary and proper" clause or the meaning of the tenth amendment have caused a wide variety of interpretations.

Patrick Henry, that quintessential revolutionary, said that one generation should not bind another - since being governed was at the consent of the governed, the future generation should not be bound by the past. Jefferson himself even went so far as to try and quantify what a generation was in years, thus putting a limit on its applicability. On the other hand, Madison took the position that for stability the interpretation of the constitution should be constant adding to the stability of governance.

So as the old hair coloring ad said "does she or doesn't she". Do we take the intent
of the framer's as we interpret it, as an immutable base line for interpretation, or do we take the Constitution as a "living document" subject to the interpretation of the living generation?

One thing seems sure to me. It is either one way or another. The real problem with politicians is that they want to have it both way. They want to interpret gun control in one way and abortion in another.

So here you have it. You can't scold the fifty-five white men in Philadelphia for the compromises that had to be made to pass a constitution, but at the same time the vague wording in some instances has caused some tough issues in current times.

Will we last under our current system - who knows. Maybe it will be Divine Providence that will tell the tale.