Constitutional originalism is a rather recent construct. Its just that no one points out it was something mostly crafted by antonin scalia and friends that we think its some idea someone like Thomas Jefferson came up with.

Isn't it, really, a counter to Woodrow Wilson's, then, new idea of the Constitution being a "living" document? And it's funny you bring up Thomas Jefferson, who wrote it as a static document with a mechanism to change it (Amendments). Add to that the fact that he said it should be scrapped every generation so it would better reflect the current times. Neither of these approaches argue for it being a "dynamic living document".

Are you suggesting "living constitution" is of any vintage?

It would be funny if I didn’t think you were actually serious. It may be a recent term, but only because so many have arrayed against the Constitution and all the freedom and liberty it provides. It is solely a function of the enemies of freedom and self-governance that we even require such a ludicrous category as constitutional originalist, aka abiding by the Constitution.

There's an in-between. The spirit of the law.

That's how one should primarily live - the middle way, the narrow path, but without being lukewarm.

I'm pointing out that being an originalist is also a sort of appeal to authority to the Constitution. If the authority is then wrong on another topic, it undermines the point of the respect of the authority.

That's why saying "I'm not always an Originalist" while literally making an Originalist argument makes no sense. It would've been better to simply not make that qualification.