Search results
Learn how originalism is a method of interpreting the Constitution based on its meaning at the time of the Founding. Compare different sources and arguments for and against originalism, and see examples from Supreme Court cases.
Originalism is a legal theory that bases constitutional, judicial, and statutory interpretation of text on the original understanding at the time of its adoption. Proponents of the theory object to judicial activism and other interpretations related to a living constitution framework.
The fact is, a good originalist judge will not hesitate to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution’s original meaning, regardless of contemporary political consequences.
Original meaning seeks to determine how the words of the Constitution were understood by its ratifiers in 1788. Proponents argue that adhering to original meaning prevents judicial activism and maintains the rule of law.
Most historians have argued that the goal of recovering the historical/legal meaning of the Constitution is distinct from its application to contemporary constitutional problems; see Cornell, “Originalism as Thin Description.”
Reading the Constitution, 1787–91: History, Originalism, and Constitutional Meaning SAUL CORNELL Recent originalist scholarship presents a case study in the problem of inter-disciplinary inquiry in contemporary law. Borrowing insights from outside of the law without fully engaging with the relevant theoretical debates in
A scholarly article that assesses the current state of originalism, a theory of constitutional interpretation that seeks to find the original meaning of the Constitution. It outlines the points of agreement, contention, and separation among originalists and their critics, and provides a table of contents for the article.
