[VRWCmember]

The paradox of Scalia's originalism is that it denied an evolving democratic society the right to reinterpret the law, and it empowered the chosen guardians of originalism to dictate what our forefathers allowed, and what they didn't.

What the author fails to understand is that if the Constitution is a malleable and evolving document subject to "reinterpretation" and redefinition by an evolving panel of 5 individuals, then the it is not a constitution at all and there are no constraints whatsoever on the power of any tyrannical despot who manages to rise to power.

[loveliberty2]

Excellent observation. Such a view also turns the concept or “rule of law” backward into the centuries-old, yet now American “progressive” idea of “rule of men” (expanded to include “human beings”).