I'm pretty sure that a delegate at the Constitutional Convention thought the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment was too vague, or that it shouldn't be included, specifically because he anticipated that people might one day consider flogging to be cruel and unusual. So, at least in this specific instance, I do think the Founders did anticipate that the meaning and application of the standard would change. That said, capital crime and the death penalty are specifically and unambiguously treated in the Constitution. If people want to ban the practice, fine, but the idea that it could be unconstitutional strikes me as inherently false.