I agree with all of the points in this excellent article, with the possible exception of #3. For the example used in #2 to make sense, the words in it must have a sufficiently agreed-upon "public meaning." We know that quartering troops has nothing to do with abortion because the original public meaning of "quartering troops" and "abortion" tell us so.

Meanings change. "Protest" meant something different in Shakespeare's time from what it means today. An Elizabethan constitution would need to be interpreted using the Elizabethan meaning (to promise, hence Protestants as "promise-keepers"). But "liberty" as used in the Constitution has always meant the same thing - freedom to act autonomously. The boundaries of "liberty" may change to include contraception, abortion, and homosexual behavior, but the word retains its "original public meaning," as to which there is no doubt.

The "originalist" vs. "living Constitutionalist" debate has always struck me as an argument about what words in the document were used de dicto and which were used de re. Both modes are consistent with "originalism," but the choice between them determines the outcome of cases.

Like "liberty," things like "speech," "press" and " assembly" are categories - empty boxes to be filled with technological goodies and informed by changing notions of autonomy - not limited to their contents and boundaries in 1789. But those categories cannot be read to mean "libel," "slander" and "insurrection," because those readings are not consistent with the original public meaning of the words.