This is a subject with so many angles and issues, it's hard to do it justice in a post.

Essentially Constitutional i8nterpretation encompasses several methods, some of which are textual, orinal intent, functional, historical and doctrinal. There are advantages and drawbacks to each.

The most basic problem with a universal adherence to original intent, which seeks to decide Constitutional cases by relying on the intent of the framers is that the framers' intentions are frequently diverse and ambiguous. This approach also falls short by ignoring the hundreds of delegates, who ratified the Bill of Rights. In many instances the debates that surrounded the ratification are more telling of an intent, and there are still contradictions about the meaning and application of terms. Also, it is important to note that the Founding Fathers never intende to have their judgment on interpreting the Constitution to be strictly used by future generations.

The notion that departing from original intent means that jurists can make Constitutional principles mean anything they want is nonsense. The doctrine of stare decisis places much more than an advisory influence on caselaw while allowing individual cases to be decided within its reasoning.

Scalia, who claims to be an originalist, opposing judicial activism, sheds the original intent cloak whenever he can advance his own agenda. Scalia changed the clear meaning of the 11th Amendment in order to kick a Native American tribe out of court by stating that the XI Amendment is understood, "to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our Constitutional structurewhich it confirms." He'd have gone bonkers if another Justice used this language to support defendant rights.