For the modern legal scholar you can go two routes of interpreting the constitution. One being the path of Antonin Scalia (the faint-hearted originalist), the other of William J. Brennan (the living constitutionalist). However there is a third approach to constitutional interpretation, which would be strict originalism.
Scalia agrees with much of the doctrine of originalism, but he describes it as the lesser evil and labels himself faint-hearted in regards to its adherence. However, if we are to stay true to the constitution’s absolute supremacy in law we must hold all of the constitution to the strictest of scrutiny. In Article 1: Section 1 of the U.S. constitution it’s clearly stated that “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Take specific note of the word “herein”. The clause creates the notion that all powers (without exception or addition) granted to congress are listed within the document itself putting it’s parameters as the only ones by which they can exercise power. Let us not forget that this does not leave the document unmalleable to time, as the constitution has granted the legislature the ability to amend the constitution given they are successful in meeting the parameters for amendment as outlined in Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution. That said, Scalia’s “faint-hearted originalism” has little difference from Brennan’s living constitutionalism. One may argue Brennan takes no part of the constitution in its original context. However you’d be hard pressed to see him argue that an age requirement of 35 years old is required to become president as stated in Article II: Section 1 of the constitution as open to modern interpretation. In living constitutionalism there seems to be a spectral line of adherence to the original meaning of parts of the constitution.
Although Scalia claims to be an originalist, he is just farther down the spectral line of living constitutionalism in which he takes more in an original context while still subscribing to Brennan’s idea of leaving room for social progress and modern interpretations of the constitution. Therefore Scalia is not a faint hearted originalist, but rather a living constitutionalist.