the law vs the intention of the law

[Nigeyy]

I have to say it is fascinating over here that there are orginalists who believe laws should be interpreted through the constitution and its intent (interestingly the original constitution didn't allow women or slaves to vote and countenanced slavery). At least to me, it seems asinine to base interpretation just based on those anachronistic facts alone! Then again, I'm not a legal scholar, so who am I to say?

Is this really a question in UK law? It's very important in the US, because they have a written constitution so it's important. They have to apply principles laid down hundreds of years ago to concepts that didn't exist like genetic engineering, or online privacy. The split between just reading the words and deciding how the "framers" would have felt about it (which is odd, because several of them kept slaves) is fundamental to interpreting it.

Our laws are mostly made in parliament, and when it's challenged in court, the framers are mostly still with us, and often still in Government. I believe the courts follow what is written, rather than what was intended. If they turn out to not be the same thing, the "framers" can amend the legislation to reflect what they meant.