Read the article and answer the questions:

Neil Gorsuch, "Why Originalism is the Best Approach to the Constitution"

1. Why does Gorsuch distinguish between the U.S. Constitution's original meaning, on the one hand, and applications of that meaning, on the other hand? What examples does he provide?
2. Why does Gorsuch reject the complaint that we cannot know the original understanding of the U.S. Constitution? What does he suspect to be the "real complaint" of living constitutionalists?
3. Why does Gorsuch reject the argument that originalism leads to conservative results? What examples does he provide of "originalist rulings" that have had "liberal results"?
4. What examples does Gorsuch provide of bad or "anticanon" constitutional rulings which resulted from judges following their own impulses, rather than the Constitution's original meaning?

Richard Lempert, "Is Neil Gorsuch an 'Originalist'? Impossible"

1. How does Lempert define an "originalist" judge? Why does he believe that no judge can be an originalist in that sense?
2. Why does Lempert assert that "there may not have been an original intent to begin with"? How does the history of the interpretation of the Second Amendment illustrate this point, in his opinion?
3. Why does Lempert also assert that we should also be skeptical about opposition to "judicial activism" and adherent to Congressional intent?

Kim Wehle, "Justice Gorsuch is Wrong - 'Originalist' Judges Make Stuff Up Too"

1. What is Gorsuch's "Rule No. 1" for his law clerks, according to Wehle? What is the problem with such a rule, in her opinion?
2. What "dichotomy" does such a rule imply, according to Wehle? Why is it a "false dichotomy," in her view?
3. What is the "problem with originalism framed by Gorsuch's 'don't make stuff up' rule," according to Wehle? What alternative approach to legal interpretation does she prefer? Why?