But you go ahead and ask James Madison what he thinks about LulzSec.
Yes, and so what? There's a huge gulf between legislation, which is meant to be crafted for the needs of the day and can be easily modified, and a constitution, which is a blueprint for how the government functions. Human nature hasn't changed in the last 300 years. Not one bit.
>Adapting to the now is what I think is the "only reasonable way" to come at the document - and has the advantage of admitting that it's an interpretation, instead of attempting to sneakily de-legitimatize all other interpretations.
The other interpretations are illegitimate - there's nothing sneaky about it. They're nothing more than cruft added by people who didn't have the votes to actually change the document. "Adapting to the now" is precisely the purpose of legislation and also the reason the constitution places boundaries on that legislation.
In some cases, perhaps. But where copyright, patents, or trademarks are concerned, the US Constitution is quite clear what their effect must be: congress may pass & enforce these laws "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", and nothing more. In my opinion, the succinctness and simplicity of the Copyright Clause is almost timeless.