My point is that courts interpreted the Constitution is ways to apply to theses issues. There are at least two views of how SCOTUS should act. The more activist approach encourages considering the consensus of the country, the actions of the state, and lots of other issues when applying the living breathing Constitution to current circumstances.
================
Many (most?) constitutional scholars embrace interpreting the Constitution differently that it might have been in 1800 or 1900, no matter what the founders believed. Are we truly going to accept every word of 1800 when black men were worth 3/4 of white men, and only property owners voted.
================
The other example is that forced segregation (especially in schools) is wrong, and is prohibited by the Constitution. It matter not all to me that the founders certainly took different views.