You may be quite right in what you say about the "interpretation" of the Constitution by the public in the 1700s, Jeri, you probably are quite right, but what's the problem? I was defending your Constitution by what I said, not attacking it. I'm sure it had not even occurred to the men who wrote it that women would ever be voting in elections...not to mention Indians (who were considered to be "savages") and Blacks (who were considered to be property). The problem was not in the document, whose wording was a bit ambiguous, perhaps...but in the prevailing social assumptions of the time. So the wording in the document was later made more specific in order to address those issues. Correct?

We have seen a similar legislative process of change occur in most other nations over the last couple of hundred years, and we are continuing to see it occur...as regards same-sex marriage, and various other issues.

I think the US Constitution was very progressive for its time, and it still stands up well in almost every respect. I studied it when I was a student in New York State during the years 1958-1968. That was a long time ago, however, so I've forgotten much of it by now, and I would have to look it up and reread it to get all the details back in my head.