Why Originalists are Annoying

The problem with asserting that originalism is the proper way to interpret the U.S. Constitution is that there is no evidence for this proposition in the Constitution.  There is no "original interpretation" clause in the U.S. Constitution.  Textualism does not support originalism, and a priori pronouncements as to correct interpretative methodologies are arbitrary.  Beyond the document itself, what originalist evidence is there for the originalist position?  Nothing jumps to mind.  Any dogmatic pronouncements about how the document should be interpreted are nothing more than speculation.  I can just as easily argue that "We the People" means "We the Living People" just as easily as someone can argue it means "We the Dead People" (which is essentially the originalist position).  There is no definitive method with which to interpret the Constitution, despite the cravings of those on both sides of the political spectrum for an absolute fixed point from which to anchor their ideological interpretations. Originalism is one useful tool with which to interpret the Constitution, but to maintain that it is the only dispositive one is dangerously simplistic given how much more complex our society and its institutions have grown since the framing of that venerable document.