The Freeness of Freedom of the Press

In our class discussion on Monday about New York Times v. US,  we discussed Justice Black's strict interpretation of the Constitution, meaning that when the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" means literally no law, and the President act above that.  This idea of strict reading vs lose reading of the document is an argument which comes up often in other places.  The debate is centered around questions such as, do we read the Constitution today as it was read then?  Do we read it with the mindset of attempting to understand what the framers meant by it?  Do we read it as a document which was meant to be kept and read the same way as a when it was written or is it a living document which changes with the times?  These are questions which have been the basis for Constitutional debate for the last 200 years, and I don't really think I'm qualified to answer them for anyone else, but if I were a Supreme Court Justice and I needed to decide how I was going to read the Constitution, I would read it as it was written.  My reasoning for this is, that when there have been things in the Constitution which needed changes due to social changes, Amendments were made, and if the potential for Amendments is possible, then who am I to decide that the Constitution means something other than what it explicitly says.