I have only about twenty pages left of Living Originalism. The body of the second section is three chapters exploring the method of text and principle in application to particular topics. The reading goes along fine, but it is heavily footnoted, as it should be for an academic work. The notes, however, make clear that one needs to spend a good deal of time rummaging through lots of other articles and books in order to weigh how convincing the analysis is. Or one might so think. In fact, I think it pretty cleverly constructed to permit that as one option, but not a necessity. The reason is that part of the methodology involves recognition that the arguments re the meaning and application of the Constitution should be (or perhaps have to be) accessible to and persuasive for people outside the academic law school setting. It cannot be all, or even crucially, an account of historians or specialized lawyers, because of the grounding in the conception of the Constitution as framing a joint project (or something like one). (Shapiro's Plan Theory there alright.)
But aside from the detailed citations, there are some issues that come up for a reader skimming and skipping endnotes, and that are not solved by the notes. For example, what is meant by principle and how does one decide on identity of or for a principle? I saw nothing helpful (so far at least) on that.
And that suggests that material on the topic should be included in a course on originalism and philosophy of law. The lists grow.