[alain94040]

I'm not sure "originalist" means anything. The constitution, like all legal texts, contains contradictions between different principles. As logic students know, once you have contradictions in your principles, you can prove anything you want.

The role of a judge is to sort through these contradictions to decide which principles are more important than others, even though they are all mentioned in the constitution.

So I don't see how there is an objective concept of "originalist": you have to pick some principles over others. Which ones you pick are a lot more guided by your own ideology than by the words on paper.

[Animats]

It has meaning, but not what we see today. Interpreting the US Constitution as intended by its authors would probably have consequences like this:

- A much stronger view of the Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That means no searches without a warrant, period. No general surveillance. No "drug exception". No "exigent circumstances" exception. Wiretapping, on a court order only. Which is where the US mostly was until the 1960s or so. This means going back to "We have you surrounded. Come out with your hands up".

- Much more use of jury trials. Anything that involves even a day in jail, or a fine over $20 (might allow for inflation adjustment) means a jury trial. No treating six months in jail as a "petty offense". Longer sentences for demanding a jury trial would be considered a major Fifth Amendment violation. And no "civil forfeitures".

- Religion is just another business. No tax break, no restrictions on lobbying, no exemptions from other neutral laws.

- Corporations are not "persons". The history of how corporations got constitutional rights is strange and interesting. See Southern Pacific Railroad vs. County of Santa Clara (1886). Until then, corporations did not have constitutional rights; only their employees did.

That's originalism.

[bleepblorp]

The even more blunt implication of good-faith originalism would be interpreting the 2nd amendment to allow the non-governmental ownership of nuclear weapons.

The original intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow a 'well regulated militia' to be adequately equipped to fight off an invading army, which in modern terms would mean that the 'well regulated militia' would need to be able to own tanks, fighter aircraft, warships, missiles, and nuclear warheads.

Contemporary originalists, however, both completely discard the mention of a 'well regulated militia' in the 2nd amendment and have re-interpreted the right to encompass only small arms.

Legal originalism is not an ideology predicated on good faith. It is a figleaf to misuse the opinions of the authors of the US constitution to defend the beliefs of contemporary conservatives.

[ceejayoz]

> I'm not sure "originalist" means anything. The constitution, like all legal texts, contains contradictions between different principles.

Not just the Constitution, either. Other contemporary writings - the Federalist Papers, etc. - are often quote-mined to determine "intent". As you identify, these offer a lot of opportunities to pick and choose stuff in favor of whatever ideological decision you'd like to make.