Who gives a damn about the Founders?
And why is that? Don't get me wrong, the Founding Fathers and Framers did a great deal of good things, and I'm thankful for what they did, but it's not like they were these geniuses who came up with flawless documents that can stand the test of time. The first attempt they made ended up being so flawed that it was scrapped within 10 years and replaced by a document that arguably had the possibility of being illegally enacted. Luckily Rhode Island ended up ratifying it, so that problem was avoided.
So you've got the Framers, and they drafted a document that was once again flawed enough that less than a century later, a President had to butcher the principles of that document in order to preserve the unity of the nation.
Too many Republicans, especially Tea Partiers, treat the Constitution like some infallible Bible that solves all problems, when in reality, it is a severely flawed document.
As Gilbert Keith Chesterton put it, "Before you tear down a fence, be sure that you know why it is there".
A venerable tradition has some reason for coming into existence and some cause for outlasting those who started it. English common law and the Constitution of the United States fit clearly into the category of "venerable traditions". One repudiates even parts of them only with great care and never as a trifle or fad.
The Founding Fathers picked and chose from traditions with which they were familiar; they knew the Hebrews from the Bible and knew the ancient Greeks and Romans from their secular readings. They had British tradition from their colonial heritage. They knew of the (then) contemporary Republics of the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Poland but rejected them as models. More relevant was the government of the Republic of Venice, with a Doge (holding hereditary power analogous to the President of the United States, an aristocratic Senate, and a participatory body in which in theory anyone could participate. Such allowed a separation of powers then rare.
...But not only do we have the words of a Constitution, we also have interpretations. Some interpretations are standard; some are cranky at best and heretical at worst. Even a Communist could interpret the Constitution as a call for a Marxist-Leninist model of government, and a racist fascist could simply deny the humanity of people defined as non-persons.
The most obvious neglect of the Constitution was slavery, tolerated in practice as an institution in decline. Slavery got a new impetus in cotton, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments effectively correct that great mistake.
Could women vote without violating old principle? Why not -- but that required a Constitutional amendment. Could voters elect members of the US Senate with fewer problems than state legislatures? Voters have elected some horrid Senators, but just think of the sort of politician the Republican-dominated Michigan State legislature might have appointed in 2012:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=ytff1-yff40&p=hoekstra%20super%20bowl%20ad&type=Someone with the intellectual vacuity to sponsor this sort of ad isn't the sort that I want determining whether treaties and appointments to the Supreme Court.
Poll taxes? Not necessary any more than tolls are necessary for funding two-lane blacktop roads.
