My Birch Bayh project is originalist in a sense. Part of what I’m looking at is the original public meaning of the 25th and 26th Amendments. But it’s not like the typical originalist work.
First, there is no 25th Amendment litigation. The implementation of that text is almost entirely in the hands of Congress and the Executive Branch. And they are not bound to be originalists in the way that judges might be. What I’m digging up may be of interest, but it’s not on the same level as 14th Amendment work.
Second, the venues are different. Birch Bayh sometimes went on Meet the Press to talk about constitutional proposals. That mattered for what the public knew but is not like reading newspaper accounts, though they also mattered. Media politics played a role in the 20th century that is absent from 1787 or 1791.
Third, the events that I’m described are still within living memory for many people. Constitutional provisions look different over time. They become more abstract. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment is construed far too narrowly today in part because that was ratified within the lifetime of many current judges. They do not see it in the same way as they would a text that long predated them.