Regarding this post on alternatives to originalism, Tom Bell (Chapman Law) writes:
You wrote of constitutional interpretation, "there is no third way. Academic attempts to find one are illusions. You can try to figure out what the original meaning is, or you can try to figure out what the best result is. The question is which one judges should be doing."
With all due respect, my friend, I think you commit the error of the excluded middle. See The Constitution as if Consent Mattered. The third — and better! — way is to read the constitution as if it were a contract between the federal government and its living subjects, giving the text its plain, present, public meaning. This we do not for results but because it maximizes the consent, and thus the justifiability, supporting the exercise of governing power.
Posted at 8:46 PM