Legal Question in Constitutional Law in New Jersey

Your question presumes that all (or at least most) of the framers interpreted the clause the same way, that their intent can be determined and that it is contrary to how the courts interpret the clause today. Each of these presumptions is debatable.

You also presume that the Constitution should always be interpreted as it was originally. Many people agree with you, but many others don't. It is far from obvious which side has the better argument. Consider the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press. Back in 1789, the framers were using the word "press" in the literal sense; news was distributed on paper, which had been run through actual printing presses. The framers did not foresee radio, television or the internet. Those media are included in *our* definition of "press", but were clearly not part of the framers' definition. Even today's newspapers and magazines are printed with modern technology rather than presses. A (very) strict originalist might argue that the free press clause does not apply anymore because all of today's media fall outside the framers' original intent, but I don't think many people would take such an argument seriously.

Commerce today is also dramatically different from what it was in the 18th century. So is the way it impacts us and our local, state and federal governments. Insisting upon a definition that becomes more obsolete every day may not be wise.

If you still want to write a proposed amendment, you will probably want more guidance from experts than this site can provide.