The Great Debate Over Original Intent

please respond to this discussion question, and then make a response to a classmate comment.
"Since the early days of the Republic, Americans have been debating how judges should interpret the constitution in their court rulings: should they use a strict (narrow) or loose (broad) interpretation. Today that debate between "strict" and "loose" interpretations is characterized by trying to determine the original intent of the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution. Who do you agree with, Meese or Kaufman, and why?"
Classmate Cm : "I agree with Kaufman more than Meese. The Constitution has served as a blueprint for American society and is the supreme law of the land. While the founding fathers certainly created a masterpiece, they could not possibly input every specific scenario that comes before the court. I would argue that parts of the Constitution is written vaguely for this exact reason. Because social norms change and there are nuances to each case, it is up to the court to interpret the Constitution to properly reflect current social values. Take for example the necessary and proper clause. The necessary and proper clause is not specific at all and can be subject to interpretation. I believe it was the intent of founding fathers for such clauses to be interpreted loosely, so that the Constitution can provide power where it is needed."