[Ajedi32]

> If you take an originalist argument that the constitution is static and cannot be reinterpreted/amended you have to first justify why you think amendments like the banning of slavery or women's voting rights amendments are not legitimate in the United States

Holy straw man Batman! What kind of crazy "originalist" believes the constitution can't be amended? There's a literal provision in the constitution for amending the constitution!

Originalism just means you don't use the courts to invent new rights out of thin air, or nullify rights you don't agree with, not that you can't amend the constitution at all. And even by originalist standards I don't think interpreting "papers" to include digital records is a stretch, anymore than interpreting "press" to include blog posts is.