Originalism, strict constructionism, even textualism, all that stuff, just fantasy. The document exists to be amended by practice when necessity dictates, and we always have. Lincoln dramatically rewrote the Constitution without lifting a pen. That's what happens in real life.
I wouldn't call them fantasy. I like to think of them all as different, valid, and valuable interpretive methods. Each offers a way to do it, that by applying it, advances an important goal of "the law." Mixing and matching them, figuring out which is the right one in a certain case, or which combo should apply in a particular case is an art, not a science, and is very reliant on wisdom as much as intelligence.
I would rather say they are both. I agree with you that they can all be valid and valuable interpretive methods. I just don't think, in the end, they call the shot. I think in the end, people have always and will always find a way to bend the text to the policy they want.
