Why I hate the Constitution...

Ok, not really, but in all seriousness, studying SCOTUS opinions resolving Constitutional issues over the last 200 years or so really makes you want to ask the Framer's "why didn't you anticipate any of these issues??" That is admittedly an unfair question, because so many things have changed since it's adoption, but still... Furthermore, I find it interesting that the SCOTUS justices are free to use whatever method they want to interpret the Constitution and they ping-pong back and forth all the time (perhaps in a desperate attempt to maintain some consistency in their opinions). I mean really, it seems to me that it make sense to either be strictly formalist and decide cases based on a strict interpretation of the text, or allow a more functionalist perspective and take modern needs regarding efficiency within our government and consistency among court decisions to play some role. What seems entirely inconsistent is to say that some issues deserve consideration of current needs and trends to play a role in deciding related suits, while others must be subjected to a strictly textual analysis with not regard for the potential absurd result this might produce. With my limited knowledge as a 1L, I can honestly say I don't know which theory of interpretation is "better," but it does seem strange to jump between the two with no apparent reasoning behind which method is used other than which justice happens to be writing and who is in the majority. I guess I'm making the old "can't we all just get along?" argument, to which the answer is obviously NO, or we wouldn't have a judiciary to decide conflicts in the first place. That's enough pointless ramblings for today... back to law school for me.