Richard Adams, at No Left Turns, points to an analysis of historian Joseph Ellis's recent attack on "originalism", the view (shared by me) that the judiciary should interpret the Constitution (and law, for that matter) based upon what we understood to be meant when the documents were adopted. 

Be sure to read Ellis's original volley first.  I read and enjoyed Founding Brothers but found the Ellis editorial to be absurd - because James Madison (or any other founder) changed his mind about aspects of federal power, we may as well run with the creative thinking the led us to the Commerce Clause legal decisions rather than amending the Constitution?  And then should we ignore the Commerce Clause when it comes to the proposed national insurance purchase mandate?? 

A good thinking exercise for our day.