sometimes majoritytively, i don't think there's a judge alive who doesn't want to know something about its original meaning as enacted. and i don't think this is an ideological thing. i look at decisions like jones, which we have talked about. or decisions like heilo, the thermal imaging of a home, the supreme court goes back and looks at the original history and says it's equivalent to peeping toms which of course would be a search, the constitution is no less protective today of people's liberties than it was 200 years ago or look at crawford and the right to confront witnesses and not just have pieces of paper flying in evidence that you can't confront reasonably, to cross examine your opponent fund mental right of the sixth