perfidy

Randy Barnett of the Volokh coalition has been posting some very interesting observations about the Constitution, in particular illuminating the tension between "original intent" and "original meaning, and the debate over whether the Constitution is static until expressly changed via established process.

I'm turning into a bit of a wonk for this stuff (of course I am. I have wonk nature like a dog has dog nature), but I find Barnett's work strangely gripping.

Original post on the value of a written Constitution here.

Followup is in a den-Beste sized post here.

Professor Barnett's SSRN paper arguing that judicial review IS in the Constitution, if you look at it right, is here, and speaking as a layperson it's a bit of a mind-blower.

Another SSRN paper on originalism is here.