There has been a great deal of debate about how the Constitution should be interpreted. "Strict constructionists" take the position the Constitution needs to be very narrowly read and interpreted.
"Broad constructionalists" believe that modern sensibilities need to be brought into any analysis of the document and what it means and that the spirit, rather than the letter, of the document should be used in determining national laws and regulations.
What side do you believe is correct? State your position and defend it. Is it acceptable to amend the base document? To what extent should that be allowed before the document is changed completely?