We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The three schools of originalism are... incomplete at best. The framers did not intend to enable democracy simply through the Constitution's open-ended rights provisions, nor did they mean to constrain it just through those provisions; both Balkin and his libertarian-originalist counterparts simplify their claims too much. Rather, the framers wanted to enable democracy, but they wanted to enable it specifically by constraining its excesses — and thus the presumption-of-constitutionality originalists also oversimplify the political theory of the Constitution. No construction like a "presumption of liberty" or a "presumption of constitutionality" can reliably be used in determining original meaning because the framers had to make compromises among the ends of government and the three grounds of legitimacy.
Instead of reading the Constitution through the lens of a single theory of original meaning, we should simply read it with an awareness of its compromises and philosophic inconsistencies. This may actually be what a more complete and true originalism would entail — that we interpret the Constitution without resort to any modern construction, be it a presumption of liberty, of democracy, or of constitutionality.
the issue isn't what the constitution says, the issue is what the federal judiciary says the constitution says, e.g., the doctrine of judicial review in Marbury v Madison, the explosive expansion of the commerce clause, the doctrine of substantive due process, the declaration as "fundamental" the right to abortion otherwise nowhere found in the constitution's text, among others.
what the law clerk author matrix battery doesn't can't admit, but which should be obvious to any observer who isn't fully invested in the system is that the constitution is being and will always be interpreted on ideological/political lines. he's writing as if what brand of orginalism matters. it doesn't matter.
So lies are truth and truth is lies. Your word is meaningless and what you say means whatever you want it to mean at the time it most benefits you. This is a game we can all play. Jury nullification, voting them out, refusing to pay taxes.
I did a search in the entire article for the term "limited government". Nothing. I saw a much larger emphasis on the Constitution standing in for/defending "democracy"... until I read about 80% of the way into this article some minor permutations associating Republicanism as the Founders understood it. Only by then, the tenor of the article is more in keeping with a statist view of our core writings.
If a left were to someday need their equivalent of C.S. Lewis writing apologetics for their beliefs, this article would be a nice start.