Its pretty obvious that conservative philosophy declares courts should interpret the constitution literally (that is, using a word-for-word reading of the original text), should avoid taking into account changes in language or social conditions that have occurred since the text was written over two centuries ago.

However, it is also clear those same conservatives are perfectly ready to put their own spin on the original text when it can be manipulated to further their agenda or oppose that of their opponents.

This is political fundamentalism, an analog of the desire of evangelicals to use the precise text of Scripture, from the specific translation they prefer, to justify the precise interpretation they desire.

My own opinion is that constitutions function best as a flywheel in the machinery of government, a mechanism that ensures its smooth operation even when there is honest disagreement about how the text should be interpreted. If there is a political deadlock between honest men, the constitution should provide stability and uninterrupted operation of the State until the question is resolved--one way or another.

Times change, and the Constitution was written in another time. A constitution that can be too easily re-interpreted is worthless, as is one that is never allowed to change at all.