The essential insight of the originalist paradigm in contemporary American constitutional theory is the proposition that the purpose of a constitution is to bind the future to a fixed, fundamental norm. Particularly noteworthy is the suggestion that it is the function of a constitution to stand as a bulwark against at least some aspects of historical change. A constitution, that is, exists not to facilitate change, for change is the norm. Rather, a constitution, insofar as it binds the future to a fixed, fundamental norm, exists to manage change, that is, to impose a structure on change, to channel it in some prescribed manner in accordance with that fixed, fundamental norm.

We thus encounter here the political manifestation of the classic philosophical problem of the relationship between permanence and change: The principle of permanence is represented by the Constitution, and the principle of change is represented by majority rule. In a constitutional democracy, where society is governed for the most part but not entirely by majority rule, a constitution plays a dual role. At one level, it secures to popular majorities and their representatives a space in which they may act freely to legislate certain rules and policies binding on everyone in society regardless of one's values or preferences to the contrary. In this sense we can say that a constitution enables or empowers majority rule, and thus does accommodate change. However, more fundamentally, a constitution establishes the outer boundaries of the space within which popular majorities may act.