Originalism purports to restore the Constitution and to have originalist Justices simply transfer the meaning and/or intent of the understanding at the time of the construction of the text whereas the interpretation of the Living Constitution sees the Constitution as having a dynamic meaning and, because of this, an evolving interpretation is necessary to avoid the problems of applying outdated views to modern times.
How many of you are originalists? What happens when an originalists comes across a word or phrase like We The People and is faced with the understanding that originally it did not encompass the types of people that would be covered today (i.e. blacks, women, and so forth)? If you're a Living Constitutionalist, where do you draw the line before bordering on 'judicial activism' and modifying the text in order to usurp the role of an ethicist rather than that of a lawyer? And can these approaches be used to compliment each other and be compatible in some way? Or are they doomed to be enemies?