I never claimed to be a member of the "original intent" club. Like J Scalia, I don't believe in original intent. Once on this thread I did associate myself with the term original intent. I misspoke. I do believe in the originalism of "strict constructionism". A strict constructionist believes judges should confine themselves to the clearly implied language of the Constitution.
I believe that that sort of "strict construcionism" soon gives rise to a purely textualist interpretation, where only the text of the document is considered.
Without the anchor of intent we are left with little more than a word game, where the enumerated powers of the federal government are limited only by the combinations of possible definitions we can find to assign the words.
SCALIA: "I have described for you my criterion for the meaning of The Constitution, which is what does the text say and what did that language; what was that language understood to mean when it was adopted? This is called originalism."
--http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/wl1997.htm
"The Constitution, when it comes before a court, should mean exactly what it was intended to mean when it was adopted, nothing more, nothing less," Scalia told a generally supportive audience of several hundred people at the George Bush Presidential Library.
-- http://bearcastle.com/blog/?p=264 (quoting Houston Chronicle, 5 May 2005 article)