Question

Do the Bill of Rights and Constitution belong in the Smithsonian as mere historical relics now?

I mean, judging by how some progressive minds talk, seems so. It seems like the Constitution, which has been trampled on for decades, is in their way.

They interpret the document in ways never intended in my view. Vague terms like 'commerce clause' and 'general welfare' (and to be fair, 'right to bear arms' one would add) have been stretched in their meaning to the point of absurdity. 

In my view, I don't think any of the Founding Fathers would support the progressive agenda. And I mean none. Not even Jefferson. Just match what they wrote and articulated and why they fought a revolution to the rhetoric of the left. There's no DNA match. In the end, when push would come to shove, they would be cautious to side with individual liberty over the tyranny of the state.

They were more Montesquieu, Smith, Hume, Locke, Paine, Bastiat, Galiani than they were Rousseau.

It is worth noting, no matter where you stand about the Constitution, it's part of a duo of documents (the Magna Carta being the other - and perhaps a third with the Edict of Paris in the 7th century) unseen in history where liberty is guaranteed. 

In 3000 years or so of Western civilization, but two documents.

Think about it.