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
I disagree with that. Obviously, what the document says is the controlling factor, but it's a rather brief document and it doesn't go into much detail.
That's why a study of the Federalist Papers gives an insight as to what principles were being established in those few lines. That's still a strict constructionist interpretation.
What is not "strict constructionist" is inventing a new principle not mentioned in the Constitution and giving it constitutional status.