About "original intentions"....

Speaking of soundbyte lingo to be sick of hearing, let's talk about "original intentions" a bit. Everybody who has an opinion on the Constitution claims their view best reflects "the intentions of our founders." The problem is all of the primary and secondary texts admissible as evidence must be interpreted and are just as easily pimped for the service of ideology. Also, why should I necessarily care what the founders intended? They are dead and I live with the Constitution in 2005. Even if some right-wing wacko makes a compelling case that, say, they really intended for America to be a Protestant-fundamentalist-theocratic-police state, or if some left-wing loon can show evidence they would have wanted to protect the rights of gay children to marry multiple animals of the same sex and bill the taxpayers for the tuxedo rental, what makes them right? It's not like the "founders" were never wrong about anything. As far as I can tell, the difference between "activism" and "constructionism" is whether you or I am doing it. WEAK-MINDED DOGMATIST DISCLAIMER: the preceding statement is not a plug for Constitutional relativism, as some may be tempted to assert. I think "right" and "wrong" are meaningful categories, but instead want to point out the inconsistency (even hypocrisy) with which the terms are used, which makes meaningful, truth-seeking discourse impossible.