Against "Originalism"

At least some of the current conservative members of the Supreme Court are advocates of the principle of "originalism," which holds that all statements in the document must be interpreted as they would have been when it was adopted. Yet Article V of the Constitution spells out the process for making amendments to the document. This, it seems to me, makes it very clear that those who drafted the Constitution understood that, over time, changes would be necessary in order to keep the document in tune with changes in society. That article was, in fact, first applied with the adoption of the Bill of Rights on 15 December 1791, a little over three years after the Constitution's ratification. In view of this acknowledgement of the need for change, it seems highly unlikely that the framers would have insisted on adherence to the original interpretation of the wording. In other words, I believe there are strong reasons to believe the originalists are wrong.