Moving beyond the current flaws in originalism will require developing a genuinely historical approach to reading Founding era texts that draws on the best inter-disciplinary methods available. Reading legal texts historically will require originalism adopt standard historical practices, not reject them. Scholars must get the history right before deciding if any of the historical meanings recoverable from a careful study of the original debate over the Constitution might be relevant to modern law. Determining which meanings might be probative or dispositive for modern legal issues is a separate task from the process of uncovering the legal meaning of Founding era constitutional texts. Deciding what, if any relevance, such historical meaning ought to have in contemporary law is at its core a legal question, and not one that history can answer. Still, if legal scholars are going to cite history as authority, they have an obligation to get the history right.

中文翻译：

---

阅读宪法，1787-91：历史、原旨主义和宪法意义

超越目前原创主义的缺陷，需要开发一种真正的历史方法来阅读建国时代的文本，利用现有的最佳跨学科方法。历史地阅读法律文本将要求原创性采用标准的历史实践，而不是拒绝它们。学者们必须先弄清历史，然后再决定从对宪法最初辩论的仔细研究中恢复的任何历史意义是否可能与现代法律相关。确定哪些含义对于现代法律问题可能是证明性的或决定性的，这是与揭示建国时代宪法文本的法律含义的过程不同的任务。决定这种历史意义在当代法律中应该具有什么（如果有的话），其核心是一个法律问题，而不是历史可以回答的问题。