A popular theory amongst those who would have us to return to the old times is that we should base interpretation of the Constitution on the Framers' intent. The theory is called "originalism."
However, there was no single theory of the Constitution held by the Framers. The Constitution was the product of compromises, many revolving around the issue of slavery. By the way, those who wanted to keep slavery won. Do we rely upon those individuals' vews to interpret our rights today? Arguendo, do we look to the 39 delegates of the Constitutional Convention who signed the final document? What about the 55 who attended the Convention, at one time or another? There were 70 delegates who were chosen to attend but did not. Do we disregard Patrick Henry as an influence on the final document because he "smelt a rat" at the Convention and refused to go to Philadelphia? Of course, he also is (errounesouly) quoted as saying "Give me liberty or give me death." He was a slaveholder---an individual who claimed proprietary rights over other human beings. Was his a holistic system of beliefs upon which we should rely today? Do we rely upon the proceedings of the state ratification conventions?
Justice Scalia has said we look to the mindset of the average person of the time. How? Do we consult the newspaper articles of the time? Private correspondence of various individuals? Perhaps we should read the few novels that were in print. Those are works of fiction but might give us insights into how people thought.
And what people do we include in this revival? Do we limit ourselves to the thoughts and opinions of those few who were able to vote—white, male landowners? I think 220-plus years of history have taught how foolish disenfranchisement is. Also, many of the people who could not vote or otherwise provide input to the Constitution, might have had different views on the meaning of the document. Slaves, women, and Native Americans might have differed with the delegates who held forth nightly at the taverns in Philadelphia.
We should go back to the 1780s as a rigid guide for interpretation of the Constitution the same as we should go back to that time for a rigid guide as to medicine and science. There were some good starts of ideas, but people’s life expectancies were much shorter than today.