Agree or disagree with the outcome, but IMO the Framers wouldn't have seen it as outside the scope of judicial authority or of the common law tradition.
and therein lies the problem... there is no understanding of what common law means. they think we live in a code state.
To be fair, it's not like the common law tradition and history or a comparison to code law systems is widespread stuff in civics classes.
But when you're talking "originalist", going back to the common law as it existed in 1789 is one of the cornerstones of legitimate originalist interpretation. And you know a lot more law at that time than now was judicial, not statutory. All of equity was judicial law by definition. Without understanding the system or its history, how can one really be an originalist at all?
It's a conundrum.
it's only a conundrum insofar as people are uninformed and misinformed. the question then becomes short of forcing people to study constitutional law in school (which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.. we had to at least study and argue some of the major cases in high school) i'm not sure what you do about the pretend constitutionalists.