Being a Constitutional Conservative means I am a believer in Originalism. Originalism comes in two flavors, “original-meaning” and “original-intent.” I savor original-meaning and find that original-intent leaves a bitter taste.

So, what is the difference? Original-meaning, implies that the Constitution “means” what it says, in plain, easy to understand language. The meaning is NOT open to interpretation and is inflexible except through the amendment process. Original-intent, implies that the Constitution is open to interpretation, is flexible in its meaning, and can be changed at the whim of a judge’s personal opinion of its “intent”.

For example, Thomas Jefferson believed in original-meaning. As President, he wrote: "The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption."

Joseph Story, the great Justice and constitutional scholar from the early 19th century, likewise observed: “Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties. . . . They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense.”

When Hillary Clinton was a young lawyer working to get Richard Nixon impeached, she made the following comment on page 12 of a report on her findings. "..that the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding questions of intent, must construe phrases such as "high crimes and misdemeanors," not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them." In this case, perhaps the only time she got it right, she was demanding that the Supreme Court use the original-meaning of the founding fathers so as to not let Nixon off through modern interpretation. I'm sure she feels the same way today about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment. Hmmm...well, don't bet your life on it! Hillary changes her beliefs, as often as she changes her underwear. As a socialist she must support the original-intent point of view.

Every word in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was weighed and measured, over and over, until it could be agreed upon, by all those who ratified it. It is inflexible and set in concrete. It is not a living document open to interpretation. None of those who ratified it would have done so, had they thought it could be changed through interpretation, at any time in the future.