I'm sure that I will gain a much greater understanding of the Constitution in the next few years. I guess in defending "original intent" the main point I'm trying to make is that by attempting to follow the intent of the founders to the degree that they can be identified is far preferrable and far more honest than the idea of a "living Constitution" which has become a codeword for "The Constiution means whateverthehell I want it to mean."
To use the Big Mac analogy (flawed as it may be), people who seek to understand the Constitution by Original Intent might end up with a turkey club instead of the Big Mac intended by Madison which was intended to be a Whopper by Washington. Those using the philosophy of the "living Constitution" often come up with Chili Mac, or even a 3-piece suit.
Many of those who endorse the "living Constitution" really just want to change the Constitution. This should be addressed through the Amendment process, not by judicial fiat.
Your concerns are well taken. However, I'd caution you from getting caught up in the political debate about what is a legal, not political, issue. "Original Intent" is rather neutral when it comes to judical activism, which is what I think you are concerned about. Actually, judicial activism is a political term nowadays, bearing no resemblence to the accurate definition of the concept. Originally, and most accurately, judicial activism isn't "legislating from the bench," but rather encapsuled the belief that no law should stand as valid if it is Unconstitutional , regardless of precedent. Thus, Clarence Thomas probably would be considered the most activist judge on the SC, since he holds strongly to this belief and strikes down laws with unbridled glee. But in today's political climate, filled with incessant Right Wing media talking points and pundits, a "judicial activist" is a judge who interprets the Constitution in a way that yields what is considered a "liberal" holding. This fiction seems to be taking hold, which is why Bush can say he would never put an "activist judge" on the bench, and yet names Thomas, the most activist (correct definition used) on the court, as an example of the type of judge he'd rather put on the bench. But, who says politicians were honest?
Perhaps some who hold the "living constitution" view do wish to use creative interpretation to "change" the Constitution. Similarly, some "original intent" advocates want to roll back a century's worth of what are now deemed by the majority of America to be fundamental rights, taking us back to the days when women couldn't vote, Blacks were still property, children could still be forced into labor, and workers as a group had next to no legal rights so that they can benefit from such injustices. That makes neither doctrine inherently wrong. I, like the vast majority of the legal community, acknowledge the limitations of "original intent," but can also acknowledge that BAD INTEPRETATION in the name of modernism is equally bad. Let's not, however, throw the baby out with the bath water!