Law & Philosophy Paper with a thorough and original analysis (which is missing) of the debate between Justice Scalia and Ronald Dworkin regarding Originalism. I was endeavoring to show that as an umbrella term the debate is really much ado about nothing as both men ground in “first principles”That Originalism leaves room for reasonable men to differ, however, the meaning of the text, its interpretation is static. The judiciary is not entitled ot make law, they enforce it. A change in the law requires a formal Amendment, not unbridled judicial interpretation.I am submitting an unfinished draft- i would like the writer to stick to “feel” and tie the history I set out to the debate and better represent the other side, I lean heavily in support of textualism. Also, anything I have in  is not part of the paper and is merely there to remind me to cite. please stick to thesis.