From Post #96. The first "non-sequitur". The thinkers of the 18th century were strongly affected by the wars of the previous two centuries. They distrusted religion, monarchy, and all claims to absolute truth. I refer you to "The Age of Voltaire" by Will and Ariel Durant for a good description of the time. The founders of our country were a part of that group. It is therefore not reasonable to think they would write found a country based on the absolute immutability of some document. Any reading of the Federalist papers shows that the Constitution was a political document right from the beginning. The Constitution was written by two men and adopted by a group of others who argued about every point. It was not universally admired and its meaning was disputed immediately.
True.
. . . and all claims to absolute truth.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident . . ." Sorry, that's enough of a nod to absolute truth for me.
And without getting terribly tied into logic, the set of absolute truths must be nonempty.
I refer you to "The Age of Voltaire"
The French Enlightenment gets a lot of ink, but Americans were (naturally) more influenced by English thinkers.
It is therefore not reasonable to think they would write found a country based on the absolute immutability of some document.
Then why bother writing it down if it means whatever you want it to mean? And why bother having an amendment process?
Firstly, not all the Founders were Deists, let alone Voltairians. And that book which I have not read may be a good read but also full of error. If that book declares that our Constitution was the product of two men only then its error is great. Madison, who was foremost author of the Constitution, first of all had to moderate his opinion and tailor it so that it would gain the approval of the citizenry of the states. The Bill of Rights is the most obvious of such accomodations. And yes it was the product of politics and therefore cannot be said to be one man's constitution, or two. It was the product of much debate and Madison had the foremost place in its design, he being a moderate man and understanding of political reality and possibility, and also being a crafter of words and excellent persuasion. But he also had opponents of merit who undoubtedly caused him to refine his opinions and moderate them. They indeed lived in a different time than ours. When the word political had both a good and a bad connotation.
Regarding the immediate debate that ensued, suffice it to say that most of the ground rules were already acknowledged by all. Major points of understaning still required debate and general agreement, but all such debates were limited in scope by the general understanding and acceptance of the Constitution and none presumed that the Constitution contained words open to any interpretation. None thought they had written a meaningless document.
This leads me to your greater error: your general position that because the Constitution is amenable to different interpretation, it is open to all interpretation. The difficulty of this position is that words are not open to all interpretation. Would you say that when I write that the Constitution is in some sense dead, that therefore I am arguing that it is a buried document no longer binding on anyone?
For you there is only absolute rigidity of interpretation or complete license of interpretation. But it is in the middle ground where all political debate is waged. In law there must be strict rules of interpretation but they have been completely discarded in favor of usurpation of meaning and despotism.
You see, if words can mean anything, they mean nothing. All that is remaining is WILL.