All answers must be in your own words.
1a. Post and Siegel deny that most courts interpret the Constitution according to Originalism. How do Courts interpret the Constitution, according to them? Explain what this means. (2-3 sentences)
b. Why, according to Post and Siegel, is this the proper way to interpret the Constitution? (1-2 sentences)
2. Pick one argument that Scalia makes in favor of Originalism that Post and Siegel give a good (or at least decent) response to (in your opinion). How do Post and Siegel respond to that argument?
3. Are there any arguments that Scalia makes that Post and Siegel do not respond to, or do not give a good response to? Explain your answer.
4. What do you think of Post and Siegel's view about Constitutional interpretation? Why?