To begin with, the words "cruel and unusual" do not mean the same thing that they meant 200 years ago.

Right, so under the theory that government power is only legitimate which is derived from the will of the people people, the only legitimate meaning of "cruel and unusual" in that amendment, is the meaning according to which the people ratified it.

In order to accept the "strict constructionalist" view one must claim that the 9th amendment is a "garnish" that has no real legal force or meaning. I think thats clearly insane and hypocritical.

To the contrary, the 9th Amendment is what mandates strict construction! "If there is one constant theme in the history of the Ninth Amendment, from the state conventions through ratification, it is that the enumeration of certain rights was not to be construed to imply any expansion of federal power. Yet this is exactly the implication [Chief Justice] Marshall draws from the enumeration of rights in Article I, Section 9."

Liberals and Conservatives who wish to use government power in new ways to control what people can do ought to amend the consitution to do it.

Absolutely.

RE: Scalia Dismisses 'Living Constitution' - Yahoo! News