Originalism is quite simple, which is precisely why postmodernists and progressive academics attack it: when you take the proper (and only truly coherent) linguistic approach to interpretation, it becomes far more difficult for the receivers of texts to justify substituting...

...their on intentions for those of the text’s authors. Originalism makes the very commonsense observation that a text produced by people with agency and intent has that intent fixed to the text — and it is the job of interpreters to decode that intent.

To make this process...

...as easy as possible, legal conventions have been established that demand a text express its authors’ intentions as clearly as possible.

In law, the intent that matters is the collective intent of the legislature, which is presumed to be evinced in the text’s clear wording.

Thus, interpreters of law should hold very basic positions: 1) that a law was written and passed by a legislative body which had a specific set of intentions in mind. 2) that set of intentions is fixed by the text as written. 3) it is the job of the interpreter to decode that...

...set of intentions. If intent is poorly signaled, courts should return these laws to the legislature for clarification when possible.