Law360, New York (March 27, 2017, 6:08 PM EDT) -- With U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge Neil Gorsuch underway, headlines are full of items about the so-called "original meaning" theory of constitutional interpretation. The late Justice Antonin Scalia was the most well-known proponent of this doctrine, which calls for judges to determine the meaning of a constitutional provision by ascertaining how the provision was understood by "a reasonable person" at the time it was drafted. Thus, originalism tends to focus on the meaning of words as they were understood when used by the framers as the touchstone for constitutional interpretation. The original meaning theory rejects the notion that the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted broadly and with flexibility according to the particulars of the present time. Instead, originalists seek to understand the meaning of the actual words used by the framers generations ago in order to determine how those words should be understood today. Debate rages between adherents to the original meaning and living constitution theories, on many topics: the scope of the Second Amendment, due process, equal protection, and cruel and unusual punishment....