Overall, the ambiguity of the Constitution is what's allowed it to persist.
And THIS is the main reason that both Foundationalists and Literalists are a threat to the nation.
Any hard foundationalism views regarding the constitution are in conflict with the constitution, because it's fundamentally designed to be amended.
They wouldn't be in conflict, because it's ambiguous. The difference being, that instead of taking that
ambiguity properly into account, they want hard evidence of the views of those who agreed to it -
and the reasons for these very clever men to choose such ambiguous wording is simply not present.
Thus, to the foundationalist, it doesn't exist - even though the evidence is right before them.
Literalists are even scarier. Such, if taking the view properly, would remove the major power
from the Supreme Court at all, one which is not present in the Constitution. They would be
experimenting with a government form which has never existed for this country.
Honestly though, a Foundationalist should be espousing the same: there was no indication
that the Founders desired such a massive power for the courts.