Member-only story

Originalism and the Good Constitution: A Comprehensive Guide

Ernest J. Gaines

·18.7k Followers· Follow

Published in Originalism And The Good Constitution

4 min read

331 View Claps

73 Respond

Save

Listen

Originalism is a theory of constitutional interpretation that seeks to interpret the Constitution according to the original intent of its framers. This means that originalists believe that the best way to understand the meaning of the Constitution is to look at what the people who wrote and ratified it intended it to mean.

Originalism is based on the idea that the Constitution is a contract between the people and the government. As such, the meaning of the Constitution should be determined by the intent of the parties to the contract.

Originalism has been a part of American legal thought since the founding of the country. However, it did not become the dominant approach to constitutional interpretation until the late 20th century.

Originalism and the Good Constitution

by John O. McGinnis

4.4 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	1159 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	309 pages

The rise of originalism in the late 20th century is due in part to the work of legal scholars such as Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia. Bork and Scalia argued that originalism is the only way to ensure that the Constitution is interpreted according to its original meaning.

There are different varieties of originalism, each of which has its own particular approach to interpreting the Constitution. Some of the most common varieties of originalism include:

Strict originalism is the most literal form of originalism. Strict originalists believe that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the plain meaning of its text.
Moderate originalism is a more flexible form of originalism. Moderate originalists believe that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent of its framers, but they are willing to consider other factors, such as the purpose of the Constitution and its subsequent interpretation by the courts.
Living originalism is a more progressive form of originalism. Living originalists believe that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent of its framers, but they also believe that the Constitution is a living document that must be adapted to changing circumstances.

Originalism has both strengths and weaknesses as a theory of constitutional interpretation.

Strengths of originalism:

Originalism is based on the idea that the Constitution is a contract between the people and the government. As such, originalists believe that the best way to understand the meaning of the Constitution is to look at what the people who wrote and ratified it intended it to mean.
Originalism is a text-based approach to constitutional interpretation. This means that originalists rely on the text of the Constitution itself to determine its meaning.
Originalism is a predictable approach to constitutional interpretation. This means that originalists are more likely to reach the same s about the meaning of the Constitution than non-originalists.

Weaknesses of originalism:

Originalism can be difficult to apply in practice. This is because it is often difficult to determine what the original intent of the framers was.
Originalism can lead to results that are inconsistent with modern values. This is because the framers of the Constitution lived in a different time and place than we do.
Originalism can be used to justify a narrow and rigid interpretation of the Constitution. This can make it difficult for the Constitution to adapt to changing circumstances.

Originalism is a complex and controversial theory of constitutional interpretation. It has both strengths and weaknesses. However, it remains a popular approach to constitutional interpretation among judges and legal scholars.

Originalism and the Good Constitution

by John O. McGinnis

4.4 out of 5