Tea Partiers & Civil Rights

Tea Partier Paul Rand, who recently won the Republican party nomination in Kentucky, got himself in a bit of hot water over the Civil Rights. He believes the 1964 act is too broad and should not apply uniformally (e.g., to private businesses).

Reading about this contretemps brought back to mind the Tea Party's espousal of the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. I would remind people that the Constitution as originally written contained (Art I, section 2), the now infamous 3/5ths compromise (aka the Great Compromise of 1787). For the purpose of determining representation (U.S. House of Representation and the Electoral College) and tax distribution, an slave was counted as 3/5ths of a person. This compromise was to assauge the worries of southern states that, though large in land mass, had few people who could legally vote (e.g., white property owning males).

That was the original intent of our Constitution. In 1865, the 13th amendment ended slavery and three years later the 14th amendment ended the 3/5ths compromise in re representation.

So a question forms in my head: How far does the "go back to the original intent of the constitution" go?