A Bad Argument Against Originalism Refuted

This canard is often repeated: "We need a living constitution to govern a modern society."

In response, Neil Gorsuch distinguishes between MEANING and APPLICATION. The original meaning of the Constitution remains fixed; it is the range of applications that changes. Speech remains protected despite the fact that at the time of the founding electronic means of communication did not exist. (First Amendment). The Fourth Amendment still protects us against "unreasonable searches and seizures" despite the fact that there were no means of electronic surveillance in the early days of the Republic.

An example Gorsuch does not give, but I will, pertains to the Second Amendment. There were no automatic or semi-automatic firearms back then; hell, there weren't any revolvers either. But "the right to keep and bear arms" has the meaning now that it had then. It is just that the application or extension of the term 'arms' has widened.

I hope to refute other bad arguments against originalism later. See Neil Gorsuch, A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT, Crown Forum, 2019, p. 111. An excellent book and an excellent counter to leftist claptrap.