Often in political debates the Founding Fathers intentions are cited, isn't it explicit in the Constitution?

Well, if the Constitution is written loosely, that’s probably why people bring up the founding fathers so much, as means to remind and amplify.

Just a guess. I’m from Europe what the hell would I know. :D

Totally wrong, you or I don’t need to be the most political savvy or a dedicated activist. Informed and convicted is enough. In fact an outside perspective is welcome. I have the US Constitution downloaded and skimmed thru, ignoring the technical working parts. I’m going out on a limb now, I’m going to paraphrase parts that are never put forth, like no womens sufferage, a part about some people being counted as 3/5 a person. But it’s worked out now, and should continue to work out unless fear and suspicion take over. Everyone openly hates politicians, well these are the ones whom created our gov’t that gave rise to the institutions. Stop leaning on the illusion of keeping some sort of communion w/ the framers, stop conecting it with the popular and biblical morality.

Canonized indeed. People forget that the founding fathers were people, just like us, and therefore fallible. Furthermore, they didn’t all agree on a lot of things, there is not single “intent of the founding fathers”. The genius of the founding fathers was that they were actually able to come to an acceptable compromise and create a document that was flexible, interpretable, and had mechanisms for change and interpretation. I expect some of those founding fathers only accepted certain compromises believing they would one day be amended. The founding fathers are just people, and the constitution is not a sacred document.

The founders intent is important to understand what they were trying to do.
For example: In the 2nd amendment, it says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Now, reading that today, many people say that is proof that the founders were pro-gun, but the opposite is actually true. The founders were anti-standing army. They felt having a standing army would make the Nation tend to go to war. Here, the intent is lost.

I think the confusion is some uneducated right wingers think of America as being founded by Christians and thus is a Christian country. So, they almost equate the constitution with a religious doctrine and America with Christianity. They seem to have no understanding that it was founded by people who were escaping opression, who believed in religious freedom, separation of church and state, representation within the government, free from dicatorship, and a system of checks and balances, among other things. It is the spirit of this document that is more important than anything as @filmfann is suggesting. Like most language over time it can be twisted and change meaning. Getting back to the original intent is important.

The Framers provided for a Supreme Court and established a process for amending the Constitution precisely because they knew future generations would find it necessary to change the law or the interpretation of it. Without those provisions, it could not be a living document, and would not have endured. Strict constructionists seem to miss that point altogether.

@JLeslie – “uneducated right wingers” is redundant.

@IchtheosaurusRex I stand corrected.

filmfann yes that makes sense. the spirit is important to convay. to pick and choose which admendments is wrong or right is technically wrong, doesn’t mean you can’t complain but an acidic attack is wrong too. What was the quote? “those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.”
and of course from the movie Red October
“A little revolution now and again is a good thing.”
thank you.

They are, period.