I have over the years used a variety of terms as they pertain to jurisprudence and court interpretation interchangeably not only on my weblog Rerum Novarum (RN) but also in other public mediums and private correspondence. Here are a variety of the terms and the frequency of their use in blogging according to the archives at RN:
--Constructionist (10 blog usages: 1 in 2003, 8 in 2005, 1 in 2008)
--Constructionists (14 blog usages: 3 in 2003, 4 in 2004, 7 in 2005)
--Originalist (5 blog usages: 4 in 2005, 1 in 2008)
--Originalists (3 blog usages: 1 in 2005, 2 in 2006)
--Originalism (2 blog usages: both in 2006)
--Constitutionalist (1 blog usage in 2003)
--Constitutionally (20 blog usages; however, of the ones pertaining directly or by implication to the issue in question here 16 of them apply: 2 in 2002, 5 in 2004, 3 in 2005, 4 in 2006, 2 in 2007)
The purpose of this note is to make it clear at the outset that I have always viewed the terms listed above as meaning one and the same thing where they are used to discuss matters pertaining to constitutional law/jurisprudence. However, it is also possible that what I mean is not what many would have in mind with the same usage of said terms. Nonetheless I will delineate with greater precision what I mean by their use in an upcoming posting to Rerum Novarum in the coming months.