Jon Rowe has an excellent post at Positive Liberty looking at the views of Jack Balkin and Akhil Amar, one a “living constitutionalist” and the other a “liberal originalist”. He makes the important point that rejecting the Bork/Scalia version of originalism does not necessarily make one an advocate of “living constitutionalism”. Liberal originalism (liberal in the classical sense, not the modern political sense) reaches many of the same results but for different reasons. Rowe, Sandefur and I are all advocates of liberal originalism. In fact, I just finished rereading Sandefur’s brilliant article on liberal originalism in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy last year. I hope at some point he is able to make that article available publicly.