The Cornell link I've seen. Here's one that works at explaining the difference between interpretation and construction.
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1675&context=facpub
My problem with the thrust of this is not that I'm of the opinion that constructionism is bad, far from it. What I've seen is that STRICT constructionism seems to be frequently applied only when it meets the ideological goals of the ones applying it. I find that liberals/progressives do this more than conservatives, and you don't need to look beyond the meanings of those label words for the reasons. Take Scalia, a conservative constructionist at least by claim. He more than once went full bore activist when it suited him. For example:
"Justice Antonin Scalia quite deservedly came under fire yesterday for his claim that a key provision of the Voting Rights Act is a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” If the justice were looking to confirm every suspicion that conservative opposition to the law that broke the back of Jim Crow voter exclusions is rooted in white racial resentment, he could hardly have picked a better way to do so.
Viewed in context, however, Scalia’s quote is actually even more disturbing than the initial headlines suggested. Beyond whatever resentments Justice Scalia may hold, his “racial entitlements” statement was also part of a broader theory about the proper role of judges in society. And if that theory were taken seriously by a majority of the justices, it would potentially undermine Medicare, Social Security and countless other programs. According to Scalia:
Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it.
That’s the — that’s the concern that those of us who — who have some questions about this statute have. It’s — it’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress. There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now. And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this. The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose — they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act.."
<snip> So the Black Robes need to save us from our elected representatives???
"The irony in all this is that Scalia used to be one of the most articulate spokespeople for why judges should not strike down laws unless the Constitution’s text explicitly instructs them to do so. Just last year he denounced Roe v. Wade specifically because he does not believe that supporters of Roe “stick to the text” of the Constitution. Whatever the virtues of Roe, Scalia appears perfectly willing to abandon his rigid textualism when it comes time to strike down a law he personally disapproves of. I’ve read the Constitution many times, but I’ve never found a ban on what Scalia calls “racial entitlements.”"
https://thinkprogress.org/why-scali...e-is-even-scarier-than-you-think-950ffd6c498d
As for WHO is funding the movement to rewrite the constitution and WHY, I'll leave you with (in my words) the basic WHY for all of it. The who is addressed in those links I provided. There are more, obviously.
The WHY is that it will allow them to roll back government restrictions that make doing business more expensive for them, eliminate taxes so they don't have to give up any of their (frequently inherited) money, give federal lands back to the state so they can buy it from the states cheaply and productize/monetize it, eliminate tort laws, environmental and workplace standards so they can operate more cheaply without risk from pesky blowback due to their actions. There are others with church/state motives, but I'm not addressing that here.
As always, que bono. This is not a case of people doing "what's right" except for themselves. There are a lot of little guys who think they will benefit, but they are sadly mistaken.
I was a libertarian up until about 2008. The financial crisis and what followed, along with a lot of reading cured me of that.