Michael Ramsey has a post on the recent Blogging prompted by Professor Bilder's op/ed and my post, Professor Bilder, Please Answer These Questions!. Read the whole thing, but I wanted to highlight the following:
As a quick aside on this point, I don't know that Professors Barnett or Solum claim that the original public meaning of large numbers of constitutional provisions can be recaptured with a high degree of certainty. On the other hand, surely the original public meaning of some constitutional provisions can be recaptured with a very high degree of certainty. For example, we can be pretty sure that the original public meaning provided for one President, not two; that each state was entitled to two Senators regardless of population; and that Representatives were elected for two year terms. Most originalist scholars and judges, I would guess, see the matter as something of a spectrum, with some applications of some provisions being relatively clear, others somewhat less so, still others increasingly challenging, and still others pretty opaque. It does not seem useful to me in this debate for originalism skeptics to maintain either that originalism claims certainty about the original meaning of all provisions (because often it does not) or that certainty about the original meaning is categorically impossible (because certainty, or at least near certainty, is at least sometimes possible).
I agree with Professor Ramsey that there is a spectrum of clarity. My own view is that most of the text is relatively clear, that some provisions can be clarified by context, and that a few provisions are very difficult to clarify.