Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Where have I said this "theme"?

You can argue that. 

You can also argue that the intent was wrongly determined.  That is kinda the point of having a standard.  Originalism IS a standard.  The problem is that the left doesn't have a standard at all, they just make it up as they go along.  That lawlessness IS the problem. 

After decades of leftist lawlessness don't expect me to get upset if my side engages in some of their own. 

On the "theme." A few times someone mentioned that something went against some constitutional right, and you responded that the specific thing was not spelled out in the text. But since the text is pretty low on specifics, it would effectively render rights pretty impotent. And in this talk, you've said you think rights are not much of a bulwark when the government wants to do something. 

Originalism isn't really a standard unless it holds fast to very specific things. If it's pick and choose from older texts, then it's just another way to get to a living document. 

As for the last part, I suppose I worry about the fact that we're at a point where folks are pretty open that they believe the safeguards are a bunch on nonsense. We have an executive who seems to believe he shouldn't be checked or balanced. He regularly says things that are not crimes are in fact crimes, and declares desire to deport or throw out people he doesn't like. People are unbothered by it. Those are less of issues with safeguards like rights, due process, etc. 

But if those are all chucked out, that puts us in some dangerous territory. Plenty of our rhetoric is, to borrow a phrase, colored by animus. Could a president declare the opposition party a "gang" owning to some bad behavior under their banner? Could they argue they have the ability to revoke citizenship for people they don't feel are loyal enough to the country? Maybe those things get the folks on here to say that's too lawless, but I'm starting to fear it wouldn't. (I can only speak as someone a few generations removed from a country deciding my family members lacked rights first for politics, and then for their identity. Just like that we were told we were outsiders, free to be treated like the immigrants of today and worse)

Originalism isn't really a standard unless it holds fast to very specific things. If it's pick and choose from older texts, then it's just another way to get to a living document.

BS on originalism but I'll come back to it anyway.  

For me, the living document nonsense is the problem.  Once the words of the Constitution are tossed into the wastebin of history as the "living document" crowd has done, then we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic because a Constitution that is a "living document" is not Constitution at all.  Instead we live in a Judicial Oligarchy.  

If we are going to be ruled by people without constraint then I'd rather that those people at least face election every four years than to be ruled by people appointed for life.  

I said I'd come back to it so ok, if we take your ridiculous argument as fact then we already do live in a Judicial Oligarchy either way so it makes no difference.  In reality, no you can't just pick and choose.  The founders had very clear intent in almost all cases:

They wrote the establishment clause because in England Taxes were collected by the state on behalf of a Church that many of them chose not to be members of.  

They wrote that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because they had experience with a tyrant who tried to disarm them.  All tyrants do; Hitler, Stalin, and Mao included.  

The dedicated an entire Amendment (the third) to prohibiting the government from putting soldiers up in people's houses.  This was specifically because the British had done this.  

Either the text of the Constitution has meaning or it is a "living document".  If it is a living document then we do NOT live in a Constitutional Republic.  

I agree with much of your post, but 2 things make it a sort of living document already:  amendments + the fact an amendment has been undone by another amendment

If we just had a constitution by itself (for better or for worse), it would really act as a end-all, be-all.  And that would be that.
BUT
I don't think many people consider the repeal of prohibition as such a monumental, larger-issue act, but I fear it could be used as such.
I REALLY wish they had simply erased the 18th amendment rather than repealed it with the 21st.  What's to stop any amendment from having the same fate?  It would have been easier/wiser to set extra stringent requirements for erasing a previous amendment as erroneous rather than being able to just pass a new amendment that cancels a previous one.

Amendments and repeals = a living document, no?

Years back I saw one similar with stick people. Wife was at the top of the stairs and says to her husband downstairs on the computer “honey, are you coming to bed?” and the guy sitting at the computer saying “no, there are people wrong on the Internet!”

Is this originalist? Asking for a founding father...

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

I don't actually have that big a beef with originalism as a theory, but in practice its adherents have never applied it consistently enough to be intellectually honest about it.