“In the English-speaking nations, the earliest statute directed to statutory interpretation made it a punishable offense for counsel to argue anything other than original understanding. Enacted by the Scottish Parliament in 1427, the act was entitled “That nane interpreit the Kingis statutes wrangeouslie.”3 it read: “Item, The King of deliverance of councel, the manner of statute forbiddis, that na man interpreit his statutes utherwaies, then the statute beares, and to the intent and effect, that they were maid for, and as the maker of them understoode: and quha so dois the contrarie, shall be punished at the Kingis will.”4 Even with its Law French (“whosoever speaks the contrary”), the original meaning of this statute is quite plain.”
Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, (2012).
The debate over constitutional originalism or textualism vs. the “living constitution” is not new. Nor is it settled, as Obama and his party would have us believe.