Rex...the Constitution is of course the Law...but my point was that the Constitution opens many areas where " originalism" as an attempt to look backward to what the framers meant, is  vulnerable to bias of the Justice, who, by declaring that it is not the role of the judge to apply personal standards of interpretation, and who then limits his interpretations to a vary thin or limited range of sources by which to interpret the framers' intent, can arrive at conclusions which align with his bias under the shield of a forceful theoretical view of the Law's meaning. 

take for example section 1 of the 14th Amendment, where the equal protection clauses under the law are found. What did the framers of the 14th Amendment in 1868 assume to be the interpretation of equality under the law, regarding the rights of gay individuals to marry ? To decide that question will require an interpretation that I can assure you, no one in 1868 had considered, yet are gay people not equal under the law