Against An Original Intent Interpretation of the Constitution

At Democracy (via Kleiman)

I've always been drawn to an original intent view of Constitutional interpretation, and skeptical of the alternatives. Here Stone and Marshall make some interesting points, including one hard-hitting roundhouse: the Founders' intentions were too indeterminate to settle many (most?) of the relevant questions. And, furthermore, that means that interpreters often project their own views onto the Founders.

The second point is interesting, but the first one is devastating. That's going to set me thinking on this for quite awhile...