How have past presidents justified taking actions that conflict with the framers intent?

Past presidents have often justified actions that conflict with the framers' intent by invoking the need for flexibility in governance, particularly in response to crises or evolving societal needs. They argue that the Constitution is a living document that must adapt to contemporary challenges, thus prioritizing effective leadership over strict adherence to original intent. This rationale is frequently supported by claims of national security, public welfare, or the necessity of executive action in a rapidly changing world. Additionally, presidents may rely on precedent, emphasizing that historical practices have established a broader interpretation of their powers.