For readers who are interested in political debate about constitutional interpretation, Ed Brayton offers an excellent discussion of originalist interpretation. According to Brayton, there are three types of conservative originalism:
There is original intent originalism, which Madison pretty explicitly rejects in the quote you offered. There is original public meaning originalism, which Madison seems to endorse. And there is original expected application originalism, which is mostly rejected even by advocates of originalism (though they almost always use rhetoric which flows from that premise without recognizing the contradiction).
Brayton goes on to describe a fourth type of originalism that is rejected by conservatives:
I would perhaps prefer to call it original principle originalism, the idea that we must apply the broad principles elucidated in the constitution (which is, of course, written in very broad language) and the DOI to new situations as they arise. That means often times applying those principles in ways that the original authors not only did not foresee but would have explicitly rejected (the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment being a textbook example)...
Bratyon argues that Loving vs Virginia (the case that overturned all anti-miscegenation laws) was a correct decision if constitutional interpretation is based on the fourth type of originalism — the type rejected by conservatives. He insists that if we rely on any of the types of originalism embraced by conservatives, Loving was a bad decision — an expression of judicial activism that is abhorred by conservatives.
So was Loving a bad decision? Do conservatives believe that states should be left free to prohibit interracial marriage?
Brayton issues an interesting challenge: Relying only on forms of originalist interpretation embraced by conservatives, provide a coherent and consistent argument that could lead one to conclude that Loving was correctly decided.
Why is this important? It's important because so many conservatives complain about activist judges — judges who, according to Brayton, make decisions like Loving.
No doubt, there will be some thoughtful discussion over at Brayton's blog. Several attorneys and historians comment there regularly. This subject is very interesting to me, but I am not an attorney. I'd recommend that you jump in on the comments there if you have a position and you're looking for an intelligent exchange of ideas.