And I'll go first.

I believe in a strict constructionist view. That is, to exercise that Constitution as the great minds who wrote it intended.

I quote the "father" of the US Constitution, James Madison.

"I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that not be the guide in expounding it there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shapes and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in the modern sense. And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiasesd Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption."