While many take it as a given that the Framers wished and succeeded in forming a govt based on the idea of limited govt, it aint necessarily so. Like any good Lenninist vangard the Framers understood that it would not do to just let people rule themselves. For the Framers, the interests (reconceived as rights) of the Minority ie rich people, might very well be overwhelmed by the passions of the Mob.

How are we to regard this as limited govt? The Framers structured 2 1/2 of the 3 branches of govt to favor the Minority over the Mob. What is limited is the Mob's ability to to exercise its sovereignity.

Whatever the legal merits of Originalism, as an ideology, its purpose to to maintain this govtmental structural advantage of the Minority. It is rhetorical genius to state this in terms of limited govt.

Not sure I have anyting of substance to add, since between your and Likko's fine posts and ensuing discussion there I'm not sure there is anything to add. It all reinds me of the Nature/Nurture or Deontologicl/Consequentialism discussions where the 2 poles taken too restrictively have no basis of interaction, or taken too loosley become identical.

My defualt position is to take Originalism as somewhat useful, but frequently used as merely an ideological sledge hammer used to assert with no real argument. While Living Document may potentially be used the same way, the idea doesn't have the rhetorical or political appeal of "The Founding Fathers wisely...".

Of course the level of discussion a OG is quite high and I don't mean to imply any of the participants there use anything but scapels.

At any rate, some kind of hybrid, or perhaps vibrating at a high frequency position seems in the end the only sensible one.

First rate job!