[tacticalogic]

"The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words."

Once again. "Writings outside the context of the Constitution, while historical in nature are nothing more then personal opinions and do not constitute any authority, nor are they binding in matters of governance and law. If these writings were significant, the Founders would have made them part of the Constitution itself."

Very often these writings are the historical record of that promulgation.

[Reagan Man]

I thought you might go there. Okay. Another Scalia-like view point.

As I have explained elsewhere, "original meaning" refers to the meaning a reasonable speaker of English would have attached to the words, phrases, sentences, etc. at the time the particular provision was adopted. It is originalist because it disregards any change to that meaning that may have occurred in the intervening years. It is objective insofar as it looks to the public meaning conveyed by the words used in the Constitution, rather than to the subjective intentions of its framers or ratifiers. By contrast, "original intent" refers to the goals, objectives, or purposes of those who wrote or ratified the text. These intentions could have been publicly known--or hidden behind a veil of secrecy. They could and indeed were likely to be in conflict.

- Randy E. Barnett, University of Chicago Law Review - Winter, 2001