But on to the main point: Sure, the Founding Fathers (FF) knew that they weren’t perfect men. They wanted the Constitution to be a living document. However! I quote Edwin Meese III:

(http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed060605a.cfm)
Originalists believe in a living Constitution, of course — we certainly wouldn’t argue that the work of the Framers is dead. But we realize that if the Constitution means nothing more than what each new generation would prefer it to mean, it’s already dead.
The way originalists read the Constitution, through the eyes of its authors, it remains very much alive, and very much relevant to today’s political and legal discussions.

LOL, that quote tickles me to death! “If we say it “lives”, it’s already dead”. LOL. But back to the issue.

You said – “The problem with looking to our forefathers for advice is that when we try to mimic the past we have to first assume that the past was better than the present in a certain area.”

My Goodness, man! That is just disgusting. Who’s job is it to decide that the present is better than the past? The judges or the peoples? One of the most revolting cases I have read referred to the, “evolving standards of decency”, where the Justices on the Supreme Court FORCED their “higher standards” on ALL of the American people, THE MAJORITY OF WHICH, D.I.D N.O.T A.G.R.E.E. with the ruling as was evidenced in the existence of contrary laws in the majority of the states. grrr.

On to another point:

Yes, yes, yes: racial and gender discrimination are vile things. In viewing these issues, though, an originalist would not go back and consult 1789. NO! He would instead go back and consult the original intent of those people who wrote and ratified the 13th and 19th amendments. You see, it’s the AMENDING process that allows the constitution to live (and still be consistent with the views of the founding fathers), and even this process has been made difficult on purpose. I quote Thomas Jefferson: “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground”. Yikes! If you do your research, you will find that this is EXACTLY the case in the United State’s history of “living constitution.” I know the name “Mike Farris” turns off a lot of people, but his Conlaw course really shows the restriction of liberty that the Supreme Court has placed on us since they adopted the “living constitution view”.

You don’t have to look back at the original intent when you are amending the Constitution! You are, after all, changing or adding to it. But if you allow justices to tell us what the constitution means, who, in reality, is the supreme power: The people or the Supreme Court?

You see, originalism is the ONLY method of interpreting the Constitution that is consistent with the Ideals of self government. A “living constitution” gives the power to the unelected judges and, in essence, loses all its power to protect the people.