I am not a STRICT originalist because I think there has been some loss with regard to the original understanding of words - I don't think it subverts the goal of originalism, nor does it preclude a reliance on our interpretation of their meaning.

I certainly think it is better than the current mania of redefining words because some people are triggered by established usage - "sexual preference" being the most recent example.

And of course the idea that you have to be a Constitutional scholar to understand the Constitution is just the priesthood trying to make themselves gods...

@tracycoyle I think you make some good observations there, although I think we can get an understanding of how the original words were used. This does, however, require some study and a bit of scholarship. I think that originalist scholars should write a lexicon of terminology and what it originally meant. Maybe there already is one that I haven't yet stumbled across. I'll have to search to see.

I appreciate ACB's notion that, when we run across things unforeseen by the Constitution, we have to apply the principles that clearly underlay it. I see similar issues here that I run across in Biblical studies and interpretation.

@KeithThroop I agree about the unforeseen. But I have a big issue with one of the larger differences. Privacy IS part of the concepts of 'castle doctrine'. Still, I agree that the application of principles espoused covers most unforeseen issues.

Of course, too many people think that the Constitution grants rights via the Bill of Rights - Madison was pretty explicit about that error. I've done a fair amount of reading, Jefferson, Madison among them. I think the Federalist Papers do a pretty good job of explaining things in more detail too

@tracycoyle Well, the writers of the Constitution knew full well that there would be many things they did not contemplate or foresee, so that is why we have an amendment process. Unfortunately -- at least from my perspective -- many people would rather try to find Justices who will enact what they want done rather than go through the difficult process of amending the Constitution, because this would require them to convince a large majority of the country to agree with what they want first. They would have to win them over. Sadly, the amendment process has been largely ignored in recent decades in favor of judicial activism. This is definitely not what the writers of the Constitution would have contemplated!

@KeithThroop Agreed....