On Tuesday, renowned legal journal, Cosmopolitan Magazine, ran a piece titled Nine Ways to Make Your Man Gasp in Bed.

No, actually, they could have run that piece, but we know that they actually ran a piece titled Nine Reasons Constitutional Originalism is Bull Bleep.

Written by NYU Graduate, Jill Filipovich, the article evidences all of the brilliant jurisprudential analyses we've come to expect from the journal that informs you which sex positions best tickle your significant other properly.

Here are Filipovic's nine critiques.

One, no one is really an originalist.

Filipovic argues that judges don't actually pay attention to the original wording and meaning of the Constitution,

instead substituting their own policy preferences.

As evidence, she chooses D.C. versus Heller, a decision that re-enshrined the individual right to keep and bear arms. Why isn't that originalist? Because, Filipovic says, the founders meant to restrict arms ownership militia members and didn't know what handguns were. There's a direct quote, nor, of course, did handguns exist in the 18th century. Both of these contentions are false.

Militia members were members of the community. There were many state laws that required all able-bodied men of age to own a gun so as to be available for militia duty. The militia clause is a justifying clause, not an operative one, and handguns were in use as early as the 14th century. Two, societies evolve, and that's a good thing. Filipovich argues that scientific knowledge should impact how we interpret the Constitution.

For example, brain science should help determine what the founders meant by cruel and unusual

punishment. But we have legislatures for that. The Constitution bans cruel and unusual

punishment, but legislatures can outlaw certain tools. She mixes up the role of the courts

to apply the meaning of the law and that of the legislature to make policy. She even says she hopes

the courts would rule capital punishment unconstitutional on this basis, even though the

Constitution clearly contemplates capital punishment multiple times. Third, words evolve to reflect

changing norms. Philipovich says that words like equal meant something different in the 1790s than they mean now, particularly with regard to women and minorities.

She is right.

This is why America implemented constitutional amendments in order to enshrine those new meanings.

As per the 14th Amendments for black folks and the 19th Amendment for female folks.

It is not the job of courts to rewrite meaning.

Four, technology evolves and the law has to keep up.

Filipovych argues it's difficult to apply constitutional principles to modern technology.

...