The false promise and real danger of Barrett's originalism

Here we go again. Create a new label and then attack your opponent on the basis of your label, not their position. This is the first I've heard of "originalists." No doubt it is a label created specifically so that left leaning critics of the Constitution can say

"“Since the Constitution didn’t consider me a person, in any way, shape or form, because I’m a woman, because I’m Black, because I’m gay, I am not an originalist.”

Justice Barret and her fellow "Constitutionalists" are not originalists. They take the position that if there is a part of the Constitution that is out of step with America, CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. Whereas the left leaning activist critics of the Constitution take the INFINITELY more dangerous position, ignore the Constitution. Such a perilous course leaves American in danger from the impassioned masses and offers no protection to the politically weak.

I believe the people who want a flexible approach to the Constitution are one or more of the following

__Stupid and ignorant of history and of the dangers of impassioned masses ruled by the beliefs of the day - "What could possibly go wrong if we ignored that old piece of paper."

__Lazy whiners- "But its haaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrd to change the Constitution" [It is SUPPOSED to be.]

__Arrogant and full of hubris - "I know better than the ignorant masses and the politically weak. I can take care of them better than they take care of themselves, if I don't have to deal with that pesky Constitution."

__Dangerous "When I'm in charge, people are going to pay."

“There is no right or wrong and it's all up to interpretation. BULL$}{!+. It's been the "Law of the Land" for over 200 years and working just fine, only in the last few decades, since the Communists have wormed there way in to our Society, do we have groups calling it a Living Document.“

Please, then, explain the following:
“It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.“

Or better yet, please read and explain Marshall’s interpretation and explanation of the Necessary and proper clause in McCulloch v Maryland.

Marshall was a founding father. I think he understood best their intentions on interpreting the Constitution. Additionally, during the convention, Madison wrote, “In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we shd. not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce.“
—James Madison