It's not surprising that instead of using somewhat conventional and boring term "precedents", or "historically accurate interpretation of the Constitution" you opted for a totalitarian term "what history teaches us". It's one thing to say that a particular law at the time when it was written meant particular thing (take "cruel and unusual punishment" for example) - and therefore any analysis of constitutionality of the laws on punishement must be done based on the historically accurate understanding of the meaning of the law, not what today some people would consider to be "cruel and unusual punishment". But again, such interpretation leaves very little in analyzing what "history teaches us". In other words, you want the judges to use the tea leaves of "history lessons" as a cover for their desire to interpret the laws based on their personal preferences.