Kimball, originalism still has to allow for the constitution to evolve over time without a specific amendment being made. For example, the 1st amendment when written was never intended to cover the internet or television, and the 2nd amendment when written was never intended to include automatic weapons by virtue of the fact that these things did not exist when the constitution was written. Doesn't mean the constitution has to be amended each time a new technology is implemented. Same thing with the 4th amendment, the founders never intended to prevent law enforcement from using heat vision to peer into a person's home, but we don't require an amendment for the constitution to adapt to changing times. It is the principles of the constitution that are supposed to remain constant, the philosophy and the idea. Problem is, there was never any exact agreement on what those principles are, but there is definitely a general agreement. So while I agree we have to stay true to the spirit of the constitution, that we cannot disregard its plain language, and that the written word has to have constant meaning, the constitution has always allowed room for interpretation based on the world of those living in the present, (hopefully with the wisdom and knowledge of the past and some keen foresight into the future).