Originalism

Among originalists, only the views of those who wrote the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 should be used to divine constitutional meaning, even 250 years later in a country of cars, planes, automatic weapons, AI, rights for women and minorities and all the founders did not know. The simplest understanding of originalism is that it is the insistence that this is how the constitution was written and was meant to be read from the very beginning: that you can only refer to James Madison’s Constitution itself, Madison’s notes, the notes of the ratifying convention, the Federalist Papers, and nothing else. 

Justices may interpret the Constitution based on the intended meaning of the authors of the Constitution, or on what the average person would understand as the meaning at the time of writing. Justices who practise this approach will verse themselves in the history of the writing of the Constitution, in particular the arguments presented at the Philadelphia convention, as well as the writings of some of the authors of the Constitution.

This approach is associated most closely with Justice Thomas, who often cites not only the values of the Founding Fathers but also the values of the people in US society at the time of writing. In 2011 he dissented in a 1st amendment case that struck down a California law regulating violent video games for minors, because minors were not seen by 18th century society as having 1st amendment rights. He argued: 'The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that "the freedom of speech", as originally understood, does not include... a right of minors to access speech without going through the minors' parents.'