[1] I oppose the death penalty as it is used today. Making an example of psycho serial murderers is pointless, because it's not like that conduct can be deterred.
Those "arguing the words on the page are so sanctified" I take for you to mean are originalists/textualists. Most people in that camp are not against the death penalty.
Bigger picture, the words on the page DO overturn the results of the democratic process. The US holds the Constitution as its highest law, and any law implemented (democratic process) cannot conflict. If it does, meaning the (unelected) judiciary interprets the law that way, then it is invalid. But that's viewing checks and balances only one way. The executive and legislature (both democratically elected) also check the judiciary - they appoint the Federal judiciary and confirm, respectively. Those appointed judges may choose to interpret the Constitution in a more modern context, while others may stick to originalist thought. What I think you're missing is that it is the prerogative of the judiciary to choose how to interpret. There is nothing in the Constitution itself that mandates originalism, pragmatism, or anything in between, and given our system of government the only place to specify such a thing would be in the Constitution itself. It wasn't there in the beginning and we've made no such amendment. And we probably wouldn't, because judicial independence is a very important principle.
No, that's the perspective I am saying is backwards. Originalists/textualists just think the words on the page are the words on the page. If the words proscribe certain things then so be it, but otherwise, democracy controls. It's the "living Constitution" folks--who are generally opposed to the death penalty, who think the "spirit of the document" transcends the words on the page and overrides democratic decisions. They're the ones elevating the Constitution to holy writ, not the textualists.
> There is nothing in the Constitution itself that mandates originalism, pragmatism, or anything in between
No, it's logic that mandates you interpret the meaning of the words on the page by what they would've meant to those who wrote the words. Only in the highly political context of Constitutional interpretation is this even a debate. Meanwhile, folks who study Shakespeare are going back to not only the original meaning, but the original pronunciations of the words to fully understand the text.
That is incorrect.
>No, it's logic that mandates you interpret the meaning of the words on the page by what they would've meant to those who wrote the words.
Only if you think the original meaning is what governs today. Obviously many others do not, hence the mix of people you see on the Supreme Court today. Arguing that there is one and only one correct way (because "logic dictates" or whatever else) is an ideological argument on theories of constitutional interpretation. It's an ongoing and lively debate if you're into constitutional law.
Er, no. While that's the marketing spiel for textualism (the words in a legal enactment, including the Constitution, mean what the words mean in their ordinary meaning), its very much not for originalism, which focuses not on the meaning of the bare words, but of the meaning-in-original-context of the words (including looking to things like legislative intent.) While textualism and originalism are often held by thinkers of similar political backgrounds (both approaches are frequently associated with the political right) and people purporting to follow them often come to very similar conclusions, they are quite different philosophies.
> If the words proscribe certain things then so be it, but otherwise, democracy controls.
Neither originalists nor textualists tend to think that the Constitution is a document under which everything which is not prohibited is allowed; quite the opposite, in fact.
Legal documents tend to rely far less on puns and rhyme than does entertainment.
This is a strong point, and probably the best I have heard it put.
You two are now arguing about which side is better represented by a particular strawman. Both of you seem to be assuming that "the other side" is far more monolithic than realistic.
