Originalism

Legal interpretation doctrine

"Originalist" redirects here. For the play, see The Originalist.

Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States by Howard Chandler Christy Judicial interpretation

Forms

* Constitutional review
* Judicial opinion
* In Catholic canon law
* In Islamic jurisprudence
* Kritarchy
* Statutory interpretation
* Judicial misconduct
* Activism
* Chilling effect
* Discretion
* Immunity
* Restraint
* Ultra vires

General rules of interpretation

* Accountability
* Adversarial system
* Appeal
* Conflict of laws
* Forum shopping
* Jurisdictional arbitrage
* Lex loci
* Golden rule
* Inquisitorial system
* Interpretation Act
* Jury nullification
* Justiciability
* Letter and spirit of the law
* Mischief rule
* Nondelegation doctrine
* Plain meaning rule
* Polycentric law
* Precedent
* Reasonableness
* Rule according to higher law
* Separation of powers
* Judicial independence
* Parliamentary sovereignty

General theories of interpretation

* Common good constitutionalism
* Court administration
* Judicial reform
* Jurisprudence
* Indeterminacy debate
* Legal realism
* Legal process
* Legal formalism
* Legitimacy
* Living Constitution / Living tree / Living instrument
* Opinio juris sive necessitatis
* Originalism (original meaning)
* Original intent
(legislative intent, legislative history)
* Purposive approach
* Strict constructionism
* Textualism

International

* Anarchy
* Hard law
* International litigation
* International legal theories
* Monism and dualism
* Peremptory norm
* Soft law
* Universal jurisdiction

* v
* t
* e

This article is part of a series on

Conservatism
in the United States

Schools

* Compassionate
* Fiscal
* Fusion
* Liberal
* Classical
* Libertarian
* Moderate
* Movement
* Nationalist
* Christian
* Neo-
* Paleo-
* Postliberal
* Populist
* Progressive
* Social
* Straussian
* Traditionalist
* Ultra-

Principles

* American exceptionalism
* Anti-communism
* Christian Zionism
* Communitarianism
* Constitutionalism
* Familialism
* Family values
* Federalism
* States' rights
* Subsidiarity
* Gender essentialism
* Judeo-Christian values
* Individualism
* Law and order
* Limited government
* Meritocracy
* Natural aristocracy
* Militarism
* Peace through strength
* Moral absolutism
* Natalism
* Pro-life
* Natural law
* Ordered liberty
* Patriotism
* Property rights
* Republicanism
* Right to bear arms
* Rule of law
* Supply-side economics
* Tradition

History

* Loyalists
* Federalist Era
* Southern chivalry
* Redeemers
* Boston Brahmins
* Solid South
* New Humanism
* Dunning School
* Southern Agrarians
* Old Right
* Conservative Manifesto
* Conservative coalition
* America First Committee
* McCarthyism
* Goldwater campaign
* New Right
* Reagan era
* Reagan Doctrine
* Reaganomics
* Republican Revolution
* W. Bush presidency
* Tea Party movement
* Neo- vs. paleoconservatism
* Trump era
* First term
* Second term
* Agenda 47

Intellectuals

* Adams
* Anton
* Babbitt
* Bacevich
* Bell
* Bellow
* Bloom
* Boorstin
* Bradford
* Buckley
* Burgess
* Burnham
* Calhoun
* Chambers
* Conquest
* Deneen
* Eliot
* Francis
* Genovese
* Gottfried
* Hanson
* Hardin
* Hazony
* Himmelfarb
* Hoppe
* Hurston
* Jaffa
* Kimball
* Kirk
* Kirkpatrick
* Kreeft
* Kristol
* Kuehnelt-Leddihn
* Lind
* Lovecraft
* Loury
* Lukacs
* Mansfield
* Mencken
* Meyer
* Molnar
* Murray
* Nisbet
* Pangle
* Ransom
* Reno
* Rieff
* Santayana
* Schaeffer
* Sowell
* Strauss
* Vermeule
* Viereck
* Voegelin
* Wattenberg
* Weaver
* Wolfe

Politicians

* Abbott
* Adams (John)
* Adams (John Quincy)
* Bolton
* Buchanan
* Bush (George H. W.)
* Bush (George W.)
* Calhoun
* Clay
* Cheney
* Cleveland
* Coolidge
* Cruz
* DeSantis
* Dirksen
* Dole
* Eisenhower
* Gingrich
* Goldwater
* Harding
* Hamilton
* Helms
* Hoover (Herbert)
* Huckabee
* Johnson
* Kissinger
* Lodge
* Luce
* Madison
* McCain
* McCarthy (Joseph)
* McCarthy (Kevin)
* McConnell
* McKinley
* Meese
* Nixon
* Palin
* Paul (Rand)
* Paul (Ron)
* Pence
* Pierce
* Randolph
* Reagan
* Romney
* Rubio
* Rumsfeld
* Ryan
* Sherman
* Taft (Robert)
* Taft (William)
* Thurmond
* Trump
* Vance
* Wallace
* Wolfowitz

Jurists

* Alito
* Barrett
* Bork
* Burger
* Colson
* Frelinghuysen
* George
* Goldsmith
* Gorsuch
* Harlan II
* Kavanaugh
* Kennedy
* Luttig
* O'Connor
* Parker
* Rehnquist
* Roberts (John)
* Sanford
* Scalia
* Sessions
* Sutherland
* Taft (William)
* Thomas (Clarence)
* Whittaker

Commentators

* Beck
* Bongino
* Breitbart
* Buchanan (Pat)
* Buckley
* Caldwell
* Carlson
* Cass
* Chodorov
* Coulter
* D'Souza
* Derbyshire
* Dreher
* Elder
* Goldberg
* Grant
* Griffin
* Van den Haag
* Hannity
* Hart
* Herberg
* Hoover (Margaret)
* Ingraham
* Jones
* Kelly
* Knowles
* Krauthammer
* Lahren
* Levin
* Limbaugh
* Mac Donald
* Neuhaus
* Ngo
* North
* Novak
* O'Reilly
* Owens
* Podhoretz
* Pool
* Portnoy
* Possony
* Prager
* Robertson
* Shapiro
* Shlaes
* Sullivan
* Walsh
* Watters
* Weyl
* Will
* Wintrich
* Woods

Activists

* Abramoff
* Agostinelli
* Andreessen
* Atwater
* Bannon
* Bennett
* Bezmenov
* Bozell
* Cohn
* Dans
* Dobson
* Drudge
* Falwell
* Feulner
* Flynn
* Gabriel
* Hegseth
* Horowitz
* Kirk
* Krikorian
* Kristol
* LaHaye
* Lindell
* Lindbergh
* Leo
* McEntee
* Mercer (Rebekah)
* Mercer (Robert)
* Miller
* Murdoch
* Musk
* political views
* O'Keefe
* Park
* Phillips
* Posobiec
* Powell
* Raichik
* Reed
* Regnery
* Roberts (Kevin)
* Rove
* Rufo
* Scaife
* Schlafly (Andrew)
* Schlafly (Phyllis)
* Stone
* Thiel
* Thomas (Ginni)
* Weyrich
* Wiles
* Wood

Literature

* The Federalist Papers (1788)
* Democracy in America (1835–1840)
* Notes on Democracy (1926)
* I'll Take My Stand (1930)
* Our Enemy, the State (1935)
* The Managerial Revolution (1941)
* Ideas Have Consequences (1948)
* God and Man at Yale (1951)
* The Conservative Mind (1953)
* The Conscience of a Conservative (1960)
* A Choice Not an Echo (1964)
* A Conflict of Visions (1987)
* The Closing of the American Mind (1987)
* The Death of the West (2001)
* Hillbilly Elegy (2016)
* The Benedict Option (2017)
* Why Liberalism Failed (2018)
* The Age of Entitlement (2020)

Parties

Active

* American Party
* American Independent Party
* Conservative Party
* NY state
* Constitution Party
* Republican Party

Defunct

* Anti-Masonic Party
* Constitutional Union Party
* Democratic Party (historically, factions)
* Boll weevils
* Bourbon Democrats
* Conservative Democrats
* Dixiecrats
* Reagan Democrats
* Southern Democrats
* Rhode Island Suffrage Party
* Federalist Party
* National Republican Party
* Native American Party
* Whig Party

Think tanks

* Acton Institute
* AdTI
* AEI
* AFP
* CSP
* CfNI
* Claremont Institute
* CEI
* CSPC
* EPPC
* FRI
* Gatestone Institute
* Heartland Institute
* The Heritage Foundation
* Heritage Action
* Mandate for Leadership
* Project Esther
* Project 2025
* Hoover Institution
* Hudson Institute
* ISI
* James Madison Program
* Leadership Institute
* Manhattan Institute
* Mises Institute
* PRI
* PNAC (Defunct)
* Ripon Society
* R Street Institute
* Rockford Institute
* SPN
* Sutherland Institute
* Tax Foundation
* Witherspoon Institute

Media

Newspapers

* Chicago Tribune
* The Epoch Times
* New Hampshire Union Leader
* The Jewish Voice
* The New York Observer
* New York Post
* The Remnant
* The Wall Street Journal (editorial board)
* The Washington Times

Journals

* American Affairs
* The American Conservative
* The American Spectator
* American Thinker
* City Journal
* Claremont Review of Books
* Commentary
* Compact
* Chronicles
* The Dispatch
* First Things
* The Imaginative Conservative
* Jewish World Review
* Modern Age
* National Affairs
* The National Interest
* National Review
* The New American
* The New Atlantis
* The New Criterion
* Policy Review (defunct)
* Public Discourse
* Southern Partisan
* Spectator USA
* Tablet
* Taki's Magazine
* Telos
* Washington Examiner
* The Weekly Standard (defunct)

TV channels

* CBN
* Fox Business
* Fox News
* Newsmax TV
* One America News Network
* Real America's Voice
* VOZ

Websites

* 1819 News
* Babylon Bee
* Breitbart News
* The Bulwark
* Campus Reform
* The Center Square
* Conservative Review
* Daily Caller
* Daily Signal
* Daily Wire
* Discover the Networks
* The Federalist
* FrontPage Magazine
* Front Porch Republic
* Gateway Pundit
* Hot Air
* Human Events
* Independent Journal Review
* InfoWars
* Jihad Watch
* LifeZette
* NewsBusters
* PJ Media
* Rare
* RedState
* The Dispatch
* Townhall
* Twitchy
* Washington Examiner
* The Washington Free Beacon
* The Western Journal
* WorldNetDaily

Other

* Blaze Media
* Encounter Books
* Evie Magazine
* The First
* Imprimis
* The Political Cesspool
* Passage Publishing
* PragerU
* RealClearPolitics
* Red Scare
* Regnery Publishing
* RSBN
* The Rubin Report
* Sinclair Broadcast Group

Other organizations

Congressional caucuses

* Second Amendment Caucus
* RSC
* Liberty Caucus
* Freedom Caucus
* Republican Main Street Partnership
* Republican Governance Group
* Blue Dog Coalition

Economics

* ATR
* Club for Growth
* FreedomWorks (defunct)
* NFIB
* NTU
* Tea Party Patriots
* USCC

Gun rights

* GOA
* NAGR
* NRA

Identity politics

* ACT!
* CWA
* Council of Conservative Citizens
* GAG
* IWF
* LCR
* Moms for Liberty

Nativist

* CIS
* FAIR
* Immigration Restriction League
* NumbersUSA
* Patriot Prayer
* Proud Boys
* Oath Keepers
* Three Percenters

Religion

* ADF
* Court cases
* ACLJ
* AFA
* The American TFP
* Chalcedon Foundation
* CCA
* Christian Voice
* Eagle Forum
* FCR
* The Fellowship
* FFC
* Focus on the Family
* Foundation for Moral Law
* Liberty Counsel
* Moral Majority (defunct)
* NOM
* NRLC
* PTMC
* Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America
* Thomas More Law Center

Watchdog groups

* AIM
* Econ Journal Watch
* Franklin News Foundation
* JW
* MRC
* O'Keefe Media Group
* Project Veritas

Youth/student groups

* NJC
* TPUSA
* Young Americans for Freedom
* Young America's Foundation
* YAL

Social media

* Gab
* Gettr
* Parler
* The Right Stuff

Miscellaneous

* The 85 Fund
* AHI
* ACU
* AFPAC
* Bradley Foundation
* TCC
* CNP
* CPAC
* Hillsdale College
* IFF
* JBS
* John M. Olin Foundation (defunct)
* Liberty Fund
* LU
* NAS
* Philadelphia Society
* Regent University
* Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal
* TPPF

Other

* AFL
* Atlas Network
* CN
* ConservAmerica
* Donors Trust
* FedSoc
* NCPAC
* PJI
* Turning Point Action
* SACR
* YRNF
* Ziklag

Movements

* Asian and Pacific Islander
* Black
* Christian right
* Reconstructionism
* Classical education movement
* Paideia
* Dark Enlightenment
* Election denial movement
* 2020 election disputes
* Female
* Green
* Hispanic and Latino
* LGBTQ
* Libertarian republicans
* Militia movement
* Monarchism
* Mormon
* White Horse Prophecy
* Theodemocracy
* New Apostolic Reformation
* Parental rights movement
* Fathers' rights
* Patriot movement
* Christian
* Radical right
* Reactionary feminism
* Right-libertarianism
* Paleolibertarianism
* Secessionism
* Neo-Confederates
* in Texas
* Trumpism
* Never Trump

Related

* Barstool conservatism
* Bibliography of US conservatism
* Conservative talk radio
* GOP factions
* List of American conservatives
* NatCon
* Timeline of modern American conservatism

* Conservatism portal
* United States portal

* v
* t
* e

Originalism is a legal theory in the United States which 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. Instead, originalists argue for democratic modifications of laws through the legislature or through constitutional amendment.[1]

Originalism consists of a family of different theories of constitutional interpretation and can refer to original intent or original meaning.[2] Critics of originalism often turn to the competing concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that a constitution should evolve and be interpreted based on the context of current times.[3][4] Originalism should not be confused with strict constructionism.[5]

Contemporary originalism emerged during the 1980s and greatly influenced American legal culture, practice, and academia.[6] Over time, originalism became more popular and gained mainstream acceptance by 2020.[7]

## History

[edit]

Proponents of originalism argue that originalism was the primary method of legal interpretation in America from the time of its founding until the time of the New Deal, when competing theories of interpretation grew in prominence.[8][9][10]

### Modern

[edit]

Jurist Robert Bork is credited with proposing the first modern theory of originalism in his 1971 law review article, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, published in The Yale Law Journal.[11] He noted that without specification in a constitutional text, judges are free to input their own values while interpreting a constitution. Bork proposed one principled method to avoid this: for judges to "take from the document rather specific values that text or history show the framers actually to have intended and which are capable of being translated into principled rules."[10] By following the original meaning, an originalist Supreme Court would therefore "need make no fundamental value choices," and its rulings would be restrained.[12]

Law professor Raoul Berger expanded on the theory in Government by Judiciary (1977), positing that the rulings by the Warren and Burger Courts were illegitimate, as they deviated from the Constitution's original intent.[13] In 1985, Edwin Meese, United States Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan, advanced a constitutional jurisprudence based on original intent in a speech before the American Bar Association, a jurisprudence that "would produce defensible principles of government that would not be tainted by ideological predilection."[14] A few months after the speech, Justice William Brennan rejected Meese's view, claiming that the original intent of the Founding Fathers of the United States was indiscernible, and that text could only be understood in present terms.[15]

During the 1980s, liberal members of the legal academy criticized the original intent formulated by Bork, Berger, and Meese.[16] Serious opposition, beginning in law schools, evolved from debates in singular law review articles to books.[17] In 1980, Paul Brest, who later became the dean of Stanford Law School, published "The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding,"[18] an article whose criticism of originalism proved formative and influential.[19] Brest argued that a collective intent among the Founding Fathers of the United States was nonexistent and attempting to do so would be extremely difficult.[20] He also posited that historical changes between the time of adoption to the present made originalism inapplicable in areas such as free speech, freedom of religion, federalism, and gender discrimination.[21] Other scholars of the period adopted and expanded Brest's critiques, including H. Jefferson Powell and Ronald Dworkin.[22] Brest and Powell suggested versions of originalism that sought higher purposes than a specific framer's intent, leading to a shift in the dominant form of originalism from original intent to the original public understanding.[23]

The debate grew more heated with the failed Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork in 1986[24] with the 1990s seeing originalism becoming a broadly endorsed view in the conservative legal movement. The Department of Justice under the Ronald Reagan administration played an important role in lending legitimacy to originalism in the 1980s.[25][26][27]

## Types

[edit]

In May 2024, conservative justices on the Supreme Court are reported to be considering new alternative interpretations of originalism.[28]

### Original intent

[edit]

The historical arguments made by Hugo Black in Everson v. Board of Education relied entirely on historical evidence of the views of Madison and Jefferson and the appropriateness of interpreting the Establishment Clause based on that evidence.[29] Edwin Meese once remarked that Black's record was evidence that "jurisprudence of original intention is not some recent conservative ideological creation".[30]

### Original public understanding

[edit]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (pictured) was a firm believer in originalism.

Original public understanding originalism bases the meaning of a constitutional provision on how the public which ratified it would have generally understood it to mean.[23][31]: 435  Antonin Scalia was one of its most prominent theorists.[32][33][31]: 78–92, 393, 435

The conservative originalist movement spearheaded by Raoul Berger in the 1980s was a call for judicial restraint but over the years important differences have developed among originalist scholars.[34] Justice Amy Coney Barrett explains:

> A faithful judge resists the temptation to conflate the meaning of the Constitution with the judge’s own political preference; judges who give into that temptation exceed the limits of their power by holding a statute unconstitutional when it is not. That was the heart of the originalist critique of the Warren and Burger Courts. At the same time, fidelity will inevitably require a court to hold some statutes unconstitutional.[35]: 82

Barrett, who has been described as a protégé of Scalia's, said at her confirmation hearing that she interprets the Constitution "as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it."[36][37]

## Debate

[edit]

The originalism debate has divided the American public since the school desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education.[38] Justices Antonin Scalia, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch describe themselves as originalists in scholarly writings and public speeches.[39][40]

### Critics

[edit]

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, a frequent critic of conservative originalism, argues that some aspects of the constitution were intentionally broad and vague to allow for future generations to interpret them along with the times.[41]

Michael Waldman argues that originalism is a new concept, and not one espoused by the founders.[42]

According to a 2021 paper in the Columbia Law Review, the Founding Fathers did not include a nondelegation doctrine in the Constitution and saw nothing wrong with delegations as a matter of legal theory, contrary to the claims of some originalists.[43]

Columbia Law School legal scholar Jamal Greene argues that originalism is remarkably unpopular outside the United States (including Canada, South Africa, India, Israel, and most of Europe), where judicial minimalism or textualism are the recommended responses to judicial activism.[44]

Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. described originalism as "arrogance cloaked as humility"[45] during a 1985 speech at Georgetown University. In this speech, he also stated “It is arrogant to pretend that from our vantage we can gauge accurately the intent of the framers", and that politicians that claim to do so are motivated purely by political reasons, as they “have no familiarity with the historical record."

Harvard Law School legal scholar Richard H. Fallon Jr. argues at length that the Supreme Court Justices who claim to be Originalists actually apply Originalism in a highly selective manner "which typically abets substantively conservative decisionmaking."[46]

## Related positions

[edit]

### International law and originalism

[edit]

Many Originalists reject any consideration of International law (with an exception for British law before 1791).[citation needed] Antonin Scalia wrote that "We must never forget that it is a Constitution for the United States of America that we are expounding. . . . Where there is not first a settled consensus among our own people, the views of other nations, however enlightened the Justices of this Court may think them to be, cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution."[47]

### Strict constructionism

[edit]

Main article: Strict constructionism

Scalia differentiated the two by pointing out that, unlike an originalist, a strict constructionist would not acknowledge that he uses a cane means he walks with a cane (because, strictly speaking, this is not what he uses a cane means).[48] Scalia averred that he was "not a strict constructionist, and no-one ought to be"; he goes further, calling strict constructionism "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute".[49]

Legal scholar Randy Barnett asserts that originalism is a theory of interpretation and that constructionism is only appropriate when deriving the original intent proves difficult.[50]

### Declarationism

[edit]

Declarationism is a legal philosophy that incorporates the United States Declaration of Independence into the body of case law on level with the United States Constitution. It holds that the Declaration is a natural law document and so that natural law has a place within American jurisprudence.[51] During the 1860s, Senator Charles Sumner heralded declarationism as justifying all human rights legislation without the need for the ultimately ratified Reconstruction Amendments.[52] Harry V. Jaffa and Clarence Thomas have been cited as proponents of this school of thought.[51]

## See also

[edit]

* Living Constitution
* Unconstitutional constitutional amendment

## References

[edit]

1. ^ Alt, Robert (November 15, 2022). "Originalism Bolsters the Democratic Process by Checking Judges". Bloomberg Law. Archived from the original on March 14, 2025. Retrieved May 3, 2024.
2. ^ Strang 2019, p. 10.
3. ^ Ackerman, Bruce (2007). "The Holmes Lectures: The Living Constitution" (PDF). Harvard Law Review. 120 (7). Archived (PDF) from the original on June 20, 2022. Retrieved March 27, 2025.
4. ^ Vloet, Katie (September 22, 2015). "Two Views of the Constitution: Originalism vs. Non-Originalism". University of Michigan Law School. Archived from the original on March 14, 2025. Retrieved March 14, 2025.
5. ^ Scalia, Antonin. "Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws" (PDF). University of Utah. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 11, 2006. Retrieved March 7, 2022.
6. ^ Strang 2019, p. 9.
7. ^ Chemerinsky 2022, p. 10–12.
8. ^ Strang 2019, p. 9–42.
9. ^ Currie, David P. (2005). The Constitution in Congress: Democrats and Whigs 1829–1861. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. xiii. ISBN 978-0226129006.
10. ^ a b Wurman 2017, p. 14.
11. ^ Wurman 2017, p. 13–14.
12. ^ Strang 2019, p. 23–24.
13. ^ Strang 2019, p. 24.
14. ^ Wurman 2017, p. 13.
15. ^ Wurman 2017, p. 15.
16. ^ Segall 2018, p. 65–66.
17. ^ Segall 2018, p. 66.
18. ^ Paul Brest, The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding, 60 Boston University Law Review 204–238 (1980).
19. ^ Segall 2018, p. 66; Wurman 2017, p. 16.
20. ^ Segall 2018, pp. 66–67; Wurman 2017, pp. 16–17.
21. ^ Segall 2018, p. 67.
22. ^ Wurman 2017, p. 16; Segall 2018, pp. 67–68.
23. ^ a b Wurman 2017, p. 16.
24. ^ Maltz 2000, p. 142.
25. ^ Teles, Steven M. (2009). "Transformative Bureaucracy: Reagan's Lawyers and the Dynamics of Political Investment". Studies in American Political Development. 23 (1): 61–83\. doi:10.1017/S0898588X09000030. ISSN 1469-8692.
26. ^ Sawyer, Logan E. (2017). "Principle and Politics in the New History of Originalism". American Journal of Legal History. 57 (2): 198–222\. doi:10.1093/ajlh/njx002. ISSN 0002-9319.
27. ^ Baumgardner, Paul (2019). "Originalism and the Academy in Exile". Law and History Review. 37 (3): 787–807\. doi:10.1017/S0738248019000336. ISSN 0738-2480. JSTOR 26756361.
28. ^ Bazelon, Emily (April 29, 2024). "How 'History and Tradition' Rulings Are Changing American Law - A new legal standard is gaining traction among conservative judges — one that might turn back the clock on drag shows, gun restrictions and more". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 29, 2024. Retrieved April 29, 2024.
29. ^ Drakeman 2010, p. 107.
30. ^ Yarbrough 2008, p. 263. sfn error: no target: CITEREFYarbrough2008 (help)
31. ^ a b Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2012). Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. St. Paul, Minnesota: Thomson/West. ISBN 978-0-314-27555-4.
32. ^ Purdy, Jedediah (February 16, 2016). "Scalia's Contradictory Originalism". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on February 25, 2025. Retrieved February 25, 2025.
33. ^ Murrill, Brandon (December 29, 2021). "The Modes of Constitutional Analysis: Original Meaning (Part 3)". Congress.gov. Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original on December 29, 2021. Retrieved February 25, 2025.
34. ^ Cross 2013, p. 11.
35. ^ Barrett, Amy Coney (2017). "Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty". Constitutional Commentary. 32 (1). Archived from the original on March 18, 2020.
36. ^ Kranish, Michael; Barnes, Robert; Boburg, Sahwn; Merimow, Ann E. (September 26, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett, a disciple of Justice Scalia, is poised to push the Supreme Court further right". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 27, 2020. Retrieved September 27, 2020.
37. ^ "AP Explains: Originalism, Barrett's judicial philosophy". Associated Press. October 13, 2020. Archived from the original on March 14, 2025. Retrieved March 14, 2025.
38. ^ Maltz 2000, p. 141.
39. ^ Chemerinsky 2022, p. 12.
40. ^ Journal, A. B. A. "Chemerinsky: Originalism has taken over the Supreme Court". ABA Journal. Retrieved July 21, 2024.
41. ^ Liptak, Adam (October 10, 2022). "Justice Jackson Joins the Supreme Court, and the Debate Over Originalism". The New York Times. Retrieved November 22, 2023.
42. ^ Waldman, Michael (2023). The supermajority: how the Supreme Court divided America (First Simon & Schuster hardcover ed.). New York London; Toronto; Sydney; New Delhi: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-6680-0606-1.
43. ^ Mortenson, Julian Davis; Bagley, Nicholas (2021). "Delegation at the Founding". Columbia Law Review. 121 (2).
44. ^ Greene, Jamal (November 2009). "On the Origins of Originalism". Texas Law Review. 88 (1): 1–89.
45. ^ "Justice Brennan Calls Criticism of Court Disguised Arrogance". Associated Press. October 13, 1985. Archived from the original on March 7, 2016. Retrieved July 13, 2016 – via LA Times.
46. ^ Fallon, Richard H. (December 2023). "Selective Originalism and Judicial Role Morality". Texas Law Revue. 102 (2).
47. ^ "Thompson v. Oklahoma" (PDF). Library of Congress. June 29, 1988. pp. 868–869\. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 20, 2022. Retrieved March 27, 2025.
48. ^ See Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993)
49. ^ Scalia, Antonin (1998). A Matter of Interpretation (6 ed.). Princeton University Press. p. 23\. ISBN 978-0-691-00400-6.
50. ^ Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause Archived October 19, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
51. ^ a b Kersch, Ken (2011). "Beyond Originalism: Conservative Declarationism and Constitutional Redemption" (PDF). Maryland Law Review. 71. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 1, 2012. Retrieved March 27, 2025.
52. ^ Donald, David (1970). Charles Sumner and the Rights of Man. Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 352–353.

## References

[edit]

* Barnett, Randy E. (2004). Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0691115856.
* Baude, William; Sachs, Stephen E. (August 2019). "Originalism and the Law of the Past". Law and History Review. 37 (3). American Society for Legal History: 809–820\. doi:10.1017/S0738248019000452. JSTOR 26756362.
* Baude, William (2017). "Originalism as a Constraint on Judges". The University of Chicago Law Review. 84 (3): 2213–2229\. JSTOR 45063673.
* Calabresi, Steven G., ed. (2007). Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub. Inc. ISBN 978-1-59698-050-1.
* Chemerinsky, Erwin (2022). Worse Than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300259902.
* Cross, Frank (2013). The Failed Promise of Originalism. Stanford University Press.
* Drakeman, Donald L. (2010). Church, State and Original Intent. Cambridge University Press.
* Fontana, David (February 1, 2011). "Comparative Originalism". Texas Law Review. 88: 189–199\. SSRN 1753013.
* Kesavan, Vasan and Paulsen, Michael Stokes. "The Interpretive Force of the Constitution's Secret Drafting History", 91 Georgetown Law Journal 1113 (2003).
* Lawson, Gary S. "On Reading Recipes — and Constitutions", 85 Georgetown Law Journal 1823 (1997).
* Levinson, Sanford (1988). "Law as Literature". In Mailloux, Steven; Levinson, Sanford (eds.). Interpreting Law and Literature: A Hermeneutic Reader. Northwestern University Press.
* Maltz, Earl (2000). "Brown v. Board of Education and "Originalism"". In George, Robert P. (ed.). Great Cases in Constitutional Law. Princeton University Press.
* O'Neill, Jonathan (September 17, 2007). Originalism in American Law and Politics: A Constitutional History. The Johns Hopkins Constitutional Thought. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0801887604.
* Rakove, Jack N. (1996). Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0-394-57858-9.
* Sawyer, Logan E. (August 2019). "Method and Dialogue in History and Originalism". Law and History Review. 37 (3). Cambridge University Press: 847–860\. doi:10.1017/S0738248019000373.
* Segall, Eric J. (2018). Originalism as Faith. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108105316. ISBN 9781108105316.
* Whittington, Keith E. (1999). Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0-7006-0969-5.
* Whittington, Keith E. (2013). "Originalism: A Critical Introduction". Fordham Law Review. 82 (2): 375–409.
* Wurman, Ilan (August 2017). A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108304221. ISBN 978-1108412162.
* Strang, Lee J. (2019). Originalism's Promise: A Natural Law Account of the American Constitution. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108688093. ISBN 978-1108475631. LCCN 2019000042.
* Solum, Lawrence B. (2011). "What is Originalism? The Evolution of Contemporary Originalist Theory". Georgetown Law Journal: 1–41\. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1825543.
* Huscroft, Grant; Miller, Bradley W., eds. (October 2011). The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139003926. ISBN 9781139003926.
* Yarbrough, Tinsley E. (1988). Mr. Justice Black and his critics. Duke University Press.

## Further reading

[edit]

* Joseph J. Ellis (2018). American Dialogue: The Founders and Us. Knopf. ISBN 978-0385353427.
* Why Originalism Is So Popular (January 13, 2011) by Eric A. Posner, The New Republic
* Trumping Precedent with Original Meaning: Not as Radical as It Sounds (4 May 2005) by Randy Barnett
* Barrett, Amy Coney; Nagle, John Copeland (October 2016). "Congressional Originalism". Journal of Constitutional Law. 19 (1). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania: 5–42.

## External links

[edit]

* The Originalism Blog at the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism at the University of San Diego School of Law
* Lecture by Antonin Scalia at Woodrow Wilson Center via Center for Individual Freedom comparing and contrasting originalism from the "living constitution" approach (2005)

* v
* t
* e

Tea Party movement

Issues|

* American exceptionalism
* Popular constitutionalism
* Contract from America
* Originalism
* Paleoconservatism
* Free market
* FairTax
* Flat taxation
* Opposition to taxation

History|

* Electoral history of the Tea Party movement
* Right America: Feeling Wronged – Some Voices from the Campaign Trail
* Taxpayer March on Washington
* Restoring Honor rally
* Tea Party protests

People|

* Justin Amash
* Dick Armey
* Michele Bachmann
* Glenn Beck
* Matt Bevin
* Herman Cain
* Keli Carender
* Ted Cruz
* Jim DeMint
* Karl Denninger
* Matt Gaetz
* Trey Gowdy
* Sean Hannity
* Matt Kibbe
* Charles Koch
* David Koch
* Amy Kremer
* Mark Levin
* Rush Limbaugh
* Mark Meckler
* Sarah Palin
* Dan Patrick
* Rand Paul
* Ron Paul
* Rick Santelli
* Joe Walsh
* Allen West
* List of Tea Party politicians

Organizations|

* Americans for Prosperity
* Americans for Tax Reform
* Club for Growth
* DontGo
* FreedomWorks
* National Tea Party Federation
* Senate Conservatives Fund
* Tea Party Express
* Tea Party Patriots
* Tea Party Nation

Related topics|

* Breitbart News
* Freedom Caucus
* Libertarian Republican
* Liberty Caucus
* Second Amendment Caucus
* Tea Party Caucus
* Tea Party Community
* TheBlaze
* Women for Trump (founded by Kremer)
* 9-12 Project

* Conservatism portal

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template