You write: "According to Merriam Webster, originalism is defined as “a legal philosophy that the words in documents and especially the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they were written.”"

Well, that's kind of how the exegesis of any historical document works. Words change in their meaning over time. "Gay" did not always refer to homosexuality, to cite an obvious example.

You write: "His interpretation of the Second Amendment included length overemphasis on its wording, “prefatory clause and the operative clause,” and surprisingly even going as far as referring to English colonial law."

Actually, unsurprising. If you want to understand what was meant by a legal text written in the 1780's, looking to English colonial or common law for guidance as to meaning makes a lot of sense.

You write: "All this pointed to reluctance to admit that there has been a change of circumstances, conditions, or situations between the times it was ratified and the modern times."

I'm not aware of anyone, in the legal field or not, who doesn't admit that. The question is how relevant that is to the interpretation of the Constitution.

You write: "If judges heavily leaned on originalism as Scalia did, the judicial branch would still uphold the ‘Separate but Equal Doctrine’ of Plessy v Ferguson, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Baker v. Nelson (1972), Adler v. Board of Education (1952), and Pace v. Alabama (1883)."

That's not correct. To use Plessy as an example, it was actually a DEVIATION from textualism, since the Constitution does not mention race as a factor in determining if an individual is entitled to the rights in the Constitution or not. The Dred Scott decision was based on what the Justices *believed* the Framers would decide in that case, not on what the Framers wrote. Had they stuck to the text, Plessy may have been decided differently.

The Framers' guilt in perpetrating slavery was not in what they wrote; it was in their determination that solidarity of the 13 colonies should be prioritized above universal freedom. The Constitution contains clever phraseology that allowed the slave colonies to keep their slaves whilst *not* codifying the right to own slaves into the Constitution itself. Even the 3/5 clause does not infer any *right* to own slaves; it refers only to how they were counted for the sake of representation, and was inserted to prevent the slave states from having undue control over the fledgling government of the USA.

So, with that perspective, the Emancipation Proclamation, although of debatable legality, was entirely originalist, and contains this reference in that regard:

"And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, ***warranted by the Constitution***, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God."

You write: "In short, America would not be where it is today; it would be a nation stuck in a medieval mentality like many Islamic states never willing to admit that times have changed. A text that was written over 300 years ago is all that is needed to stop using logic."

Heh. You don't think the Framers were men of logic? Or is it that you think that people born 400 years ago were incapable of it? (If so, Immanuel Kant would like a word.)

This is where we make the argument for originalist/textualism:

When the US was formed, there were no partisans and no political parties. A group of thinkers came together, being well aware of not only the shortcomings of the monarchy in England and the issues of the Articles of Confederation, but of other great thinkers ranging from Aristotle to Voltaire, with the purpose of creating a Constitution that (a) was firm enough to create a central government capable of governing a federation of states, (b) unabashedly defended individual liberties and rights of self-determination, and (c) was FLEXIBLE enough to be valid on and into the future.

This document was created. Although the Framers did have different views as to matters such as the strength of the central government vs the states, they managed to find common ground and consensus.

If you tore it up and started over, think we'd find that consensus today? If your answer is NO (and I don't think any sane person would answer YES) then the Constitution, at worst, is the Devil You Know. There's no path to anything better. So keep what you have, be glad you have it, and make it work.

You write: "The only assurance we can have is that filibusters by the Senate, originalism, and any other tactic meant to hinder socio-economic and political growth will only delay but not hinder change. Areas that need to be urgently addressed include global warming, socio-economic inequality, women’s rights, corporate immoderation, and gun violence."

Right. So your actual issue here is that the Constitution makes if difficult to institute sweeping social and political changes which you personally support over a short period of years.

That is by design, because it enforces political stability. You don't get a situation where there's an election, and then whoever gets elected becomes your dictator until the next election (a not-infrequent criticism of Parliamentary systems).

The Constitution, wisely, created a form of government which is designed to go into stasis if there is not clear political preference on the part of the voters. For the last 20 years, we haven't had consensus on political direction or policy within the citizenry; so government has done very little in that time. Obama managed the ACA, Trump managed a revamp of the tax system, and Biden's gotten an infrastructure bill passed. That's about it for big stuff.

You think that's a bug; I think it's a feature, although it can be frustrating to watch. It prevents us from totally falling into the trap (which we are already trying to fall in to) where each new Administration spends its political capital not DOING, but UNDOING what the previous Administration accomplished. Trump undid whatever he could of Obama; Biden's been undoing whatever he can of Trump. So, a Constitution which makes it easier to enact your progressive wish list above would also make it easier to UNDO that wish list when the Administration changes. We'd be stuck in an infinite loop (we may already be there) where political policy would be driven by political passion, rather than actual needs.

I think it better to stick with what we've got, warts and all.