Injun and I carry on with this discussion on FB. I don't "reinterpret" the Constitution, but contend that it must be interpreted in light of today's reality. "Strict constructionists" contend that the meaning of the Constitution must be limited to the precise usage of the language of 1788: in today's world that is illogical. It is quite logical, however, to interpret the intent the authors of the Constitution set down then, in terms of today's reality.She said REinterpret- FYI- you see what you want to see.
There doesn't need to be interpretation or reinterpretation- words mean things.
E.g., the government contended that the contents of a smart phone was open to unlimited search by the government since the Constitution did not specifically mention this device until a recent ruling by SCOTUS. They ruled that smartphones typically held so much data of a personal nature that they were a technological extension of the individual, and that the government shall be required to obtain a search warrant to rummage through them.
There is no possible way that the authors of the Constitution could have conceived of a device like this, or of the intensely personal nature of the data they hold. It is not "reinterpreting" the Constitution that led to this decision, but evaluation of its meaning in light of modern reality that led to it.