originalism

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.{{Sfn|Strang|2019|p=9–42}}{{Cite book |last=Currie |first=David P. |author-link=David P. Currie |url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?vid=ISBN9780226129006 |title=The Constitution in Congress: Democrats and Whigs 1829–1861 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=2005 |isbn=978-0226129006 |location=Chicago |pages=xiii}}{{Sfn|Wurman|2017|p=14}}

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.{{Sfn|Wurman|2017|p=13–14}} 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."{{Sfn|Wurman|2017|p=14}} By following the original meaning, an originalist Supreme Court would therefore "need make no fundamental value choices," and its rulings would be restrained.{{Sfn|Strang|2019|p=23–24}}

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.{{Sfn|Strang|2019|p=24}} 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."{{Sfn|Wurman|2017|p=13}} 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.{{Sfn|Wurman|2017|p=15}}

During the 1980s, liberal members of the legal academy criticized the original intent formulated by Bork, Berger, and Meese.{{Sfn|Segall|2018|p=65–66}} Serious opposition, beginning in law schools, evolved from debates in singular law review articles to books.{{Sfn|Segall|2018|p=66}} In 1980, Paul Brest, who later became the dean of Stanford Law School, published "The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding,"Paul Brest, The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding, 60 Boston University Law Review 204–238 (1980). an article whose criticism of originalism proved formative and influential.{{Harvnb|Segall|2018|p=66}}; {{Harvnb|Wurman|2017|p=16}}. 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.{{Harvnb|Segall|2018|pp=66–67}}; {{Harvnb|Wurman|2017|pp=16–17}}. 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.{{Sfn|Segall|2018|p=67}} Other scholars of the period adopted and expanded Brest's critiques, including H. Jefferson Powell and Ronald Dworkin.{{Harvnb|Wurman|2017|p=16}}; {{Harvnb|Segall|2018|pp=67–68}}. 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.{{Sfn|Wurman|2017|p=16}}

The debate grew more heated with the failed Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork in 1986{{sfn|Maltz|2000|p=142}} 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.{{Cite journal |last=Teles |first=Steven M. |date=2009 |title=Transformative Bureaucracy: Reagan's Lawyers and the Dynamics of Political Investment |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-american-political-development/article/abs/transformative-bureaucracy-reagans-lawyers-and-the-dynamics-of-political-investment/629E508D14FAABFD386512801B460B89 |journal=Studies in American Political Development |language=en |volume=23 |issue=1 |pages=61–83 |doi=10.1017/S0898588X09000030 |issn=1469-8692}}{{Cite journal |last=Sawyer |first=Logan E. |date=2017 |title=Principle and Politics in the New History of Originalism |url=https://academic.oup.com/ajlh/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ajlh/njx002 |journal=American Journal of Legal History |language=en |volume=57 |issue=2 |pages=198–222 |doi=10.1093/ajlh/njx002 |issn=0002-9319}}{{Cite journal |last=Baumgardner |first=Paul |date=2019 |title=Originalism and the Academy in Exile |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/26756361 |journal=Law and History Review |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=787–807 |doi=10.1017/S0738248019000336 |jstor=26756361 |issn=0738-2480}}

In May 2024, conservative justices on the Supreme Court are reported to be considering new alternative interpretations of originalism.{{cite news |last=Bazelon |first=Emily |date=April 29, 2024 |title=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. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/29/magazine/history-tradition-law-conservative-judges.html |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://archive.today/20240429102520/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/29/magazine/history-tradition-law-conservative-judges.html |archivedate=April 29, 2024 |accessdate=April 29, 2024 |work=The New York Times}}

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.{{Sfn|Drakeman|2010|p=107}} Edwin Meese once remarked that Black's record was evidence that "jurisprudence of original intention is not some recent conservative ideological creation".{{Sfn|Yarbrough|2008|p=263}}

File:Antonin_Scalia,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg (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.{{Sfn|Wurman|2017|p=16}}{{Cite book |last=Scalia |first=Antonin |author-link=Antonin Scalia |title=Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts |last2=Garner |first2=Bryan A. |author-link2=Bryan A. Garner |date= |publisher=Thomson/West |year=2012 |isbn=978-0-314-27555-4 |location=St. Paul, Minnesota |language=en}}{{rp|pp=|page=435}} Antonin Scalia was one of its most prominent theorists.{{cite news |last1=Purdy |first1=Jedediah |author-link=Jedediah Purdy |date=2016-02-16 |title=Scalia’s Contradictory Originalism |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250225063541/https://web.archive.org/web/20160217034525/https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism |archive-date=February 25, 2025 |access-date=2025-02-25 |work=The New Yorker}}{{cite web |last=Murrill |first=Brandon |date=2021-12-29 |title=The Modes of Constitutional Analysis: Original Meaning (Part 3) |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10677 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211229202222/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10677 |archive-date=2021-12-29 |access-date=2025-02-25 |website=Congress.gov |publisher=Congressional Research Service |language=en}}{{rp|pp=78-92, 393, 435|page=}}

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.{{sfn|Cross|2013|p=11}} 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.{{cite journal |last1=Barrett |first1=Amy Coney |author-link=Amy Coney Barrett |date= |year=2017 |title=Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty |url=https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2330&context=law_faculty_scholarship |url-status=live |journal=Constitutional Commentary |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages= |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200318161737/https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2330&context=law_faculty_scholarship |archive-date=2020-03-18}}{{rp|pp=|page=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."{{cite news |last1=Kranish |first1=Michael |author1-link=Michael Kranish |last2=Barnes |first2=Robert |last3=Boburg |first3=Sahwn |last4=Merimow |first4=Ann E. |date=September 26, 2020 |title=Amy Coney Barrett, a disciple of Justice Scalia, is poised to push the Supreme Court further right |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/barrett-supreme-court-trump/2020/09/26/20863794-feac-11ea-830c-a160b331ca62_story.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200927055147/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/barrett-supreme-court-trump/2020/09/26/20863794-feac-11ea-830c-a160b331ca62_story.html |archive-date=September 27, 2020 |access-date=September 27, 2020 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}{{Cite news |date=2020-10-13 |title=AP Explains: Originalism, Barrett’s judicial philosophy |url=https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-amy-coney-barrett-us-supreme-court-courts-antonin-scalia-038ec1d4de30d1bd97a0ce3823903f0c |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250314061753/https://web.archive.org/web/20201014121146/https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-amy-coney-barrett-us-supreme-court-courts-antonin-scalia-038ec1d4de30d1bd97a0ce3823903f0c |archive-date=March 14, 2025 |access-date=2025-03-14 |work=Associated Press}}

The originalism debate has divided the American public since the school desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education.{{sfn|Maltz|2000|p=141}} Justices Antonin Scalia, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch describe themselves as originalists in scholarly writings and public speeches.{{sfn|Chemerinsky|2022|p=12}}{{Cite web |last=Journal |first=A. B. A. |title=Chemerinsky: Originalism has taken over the Supreme Court |url=https://www.abajournal.com/columns/article/chemerinsky-originalism-has-taken-over-the-supreme-court |access-date=2024-07-21 |work=ABA Journal}}

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.{{cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |date=2022-10-10 |title=Justice Jackson Joins the Supreme Court, and the Debate Over Originalism |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/10/us/politics/jackson-alito-kagan-supreme-court-originalism.html |access-date=2023-11-22 |work=The New York Times |location=}}

Michael Waldman argues that originalism is a new concept, and not one espoused by the founders.{{Cite book |last=Waldman |first=Michael |title=The supermajority: how the Supreme Court divided America |date=2023 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |isbn=978-1-6680-0606-1 |edition=First Simon & Schuster hardcover |location=New York London; Toronto; Sydney; New Delhi}}

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.{{Cite journal |last1=Mortenson |first1=Julian Davis |last2=Bagley |first2=Nicholas |date=2021 |title=Delegation at the Founding |url=https://www.columbialawreview.org/content/delegation-at-the-founding/ |journal=Columbia Law Review |volume=121 |issue=2}}

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.{{Cite journal |last=Greene |first=Jamal |author-link=Jamal Greene |date=November 2009 |title=On the Origins of Originalism |url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=46801796&site=eds-live&scope=site |journal=Texas Law Review |volume=88 |issue=1 |pages=1–89}}

Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. described originalism as "arrogance cloaked as humility"{{cite web |date=October 13, 1985 |title=Justice Brennan Calls Criticism of Court Disguised Arrogance |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-10-13-mn-15849-story.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307230023/http://articles.latimes.com/1985-10-13/news/mn-15849_1_high-court |archive-date=March 7, 2016 |access-date=July 13, 2016 |via=LA Times |agency=Associated Press}} 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."{{cite journal |last1=Fallon |first1=Richard H. |date=December 2023 |title= Selective Originalism and Judicial Role Morality |url= https://texaslawreview.org/selective-originalism-and-judicial-role-morality/ |journal= Texas Law Revue |volume=102 |issue=2}}

Many Originalists reject any consideration of International law (with an exception for British law before 1791).{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}} 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."{{Cite web |date=1988-06-29 |title=Thompson v. Oklahoma |url=https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep487/usrep487815/usrep487815.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220420030645/https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep487/usrep487815/usrep487815.pdf |archive-date=2022-04-20 |access-date=2025-03-27 |website=Library of Congress |pages=868-869}}

{{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).See Smith v. United States, [http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-8674.ZD.html 508 U.S. 223] (1993) 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".{{Cite book |last=Scalia |first=Antonin |author-link=Antonin Scalia |url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?vid=ISBN9780691004006 |title=A Matter of Interpretation |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-691-00400-6 |edition=6 |pages=23 |language=en}}

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.Barnett, [http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm#IB The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201019031612/http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm#IB |date=October 19, 2020 }}

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.{{Cite journal |last=Kersch |first=Ken |year=2011 |title=Beyond Originalism: Conservative Declarationism and Constitutional Redemption |url=https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/polisci/pdf/kersch/KerschFinalpdf.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Maryland Law Review |volume=71 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120201115020/http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/polisci/pdf/kersch/KerschFinalpdf.pdf |archive-date=2012-02-01 |access-date=2025-03-27}} Harry V. Jaffa and Clarence Thomas have been cited as proponents of this school of thought.

• Living Constitution
• Unconstitutional constitutional amendment

{{Reflist|30em}}

• Barnett, Randy E. (2004). Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. {{ISBN|978-0691115856}}.
• {{Cite journal |last=Baude |first=William |author-link=William Baude |last2=Sachs |first2=Stephen E. |author-link2=Stephen E. Sachs |date=August 2019 |title=Originalism and the Law of the Past |journal=Law and History Review |publisher=American Society for Legal History |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=809–820 |jstor=26756362}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Baude |first=William |date=2017 |title=Originalism as a Constraint on Judges |journal=The University of Chicago Law Review |volume=84 |issue=3 |pages=2213–2229 |jstor=45063673}}
• {{cite book|editor-last=Calabresi |editor-first=Steven G. |editor-link=Steven Calabresi |title=Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate |publisher=Regnery Pub. Inc. |year=2007 |location=Washington, DC |url=https://archive.org/details/originalismquart0000unse/page/n5/mode/2up |isbn=978-1-59698-050-1}}
• {{cite book |first=Erwin |last=Chemerinsky |title=Worse Than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism |date=2022 |publisher=Yale University Press |isbn=978-0300259902 |author-link=Erwin Chemerinsky |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=h5C6zwEACAAJ}}
• {{Cite book| publisher = Stanford University Press| last = Cross| first = Frank| title = The Failed Promise of Originalism| date = 2013}}
• {{cite book |last1=Drakeman |first1=Donald L. |title=Church, State and Original Intent |date=2010 |publisher=Cambridge University Press}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Fontana |first=David |author-link= |date=February 1, 2011 |title=Comparative Originalism |journal=Texas Law Review |volume=88 |pages=189–199 |ssrn=1753013}}
• Kesavan, Vasan and Paulsen, Michael Stokes. [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=549984 "The Interpretive Force of the Constitution's Secret Drafting History"], 91 Georgetown Law Journal 1113 (2003).
• Lawson, Gary S. [https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3593&context=faculty_scholarship "On Reading Recipes — and Constitutions"], 85 Georgetown Law Journal 1823 (1997).
• {{cite book |last1=Levinson |first1=Sanford |editor1-last=Mailloux |editor1-first=Steven |editor2-last=Levinson |editor2-first=Sanford |title=Interpreting Law and Literature: A Hermeneutic Reader |date=1988 |publisher=Northwestern University Press |chapter=Law as Literature}}
• {{cite book |last1=Maltz |first1=Earl |editor1-last=George |editor1-first=Robert P. |title=Great Cases in Constitutional Law |date=2000 |publisher=Princeton University Press |chapter=Brown v. Board of Education and "Originalism"}}
• {{Cite book |last=O'Neill |first=Jonathan |title=Originalism in American Law and Politics: A Constitutional History |date=September 17, 2007 |publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press |isbn=978-0801887604 |series=The Johns Hopkins Constitutional Thought}}
• {{cite book|last=Rakove |first=Jack N. |author-link=Jack N. Rakove |author-mask= |title=Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution |publisher=Alfred A. Knopf |year=1996 |location=New York |url=https://archive.org/details/originalmeanings00rako_0/page/n7/mode/2up |isbn=0-394-57858-9}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Sawyer |first=Logan E. |date=August 2019 |title=Method and Dialogue in History and Originalism |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-history-review/article/abs/method-and-dialogue-in-history-and-originalism/C84DE495BA71C6C98FBA741236ABF804 |journal=Law and History Review |publisher=Cambridge University Press |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=847–860}}
• {{Cite book |last=Segall |first=Eric J. |author-link=Eric J. Segall |title=Originalism as Faith |date=2018 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9781108105316 |doi=10.1017/9781108105316}}
• {{cite book|last=Whittington |first=Keith E. |author-link=Keith Whittington |title=Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review |publisher=University Press of Kansas |year=1999 |location=Lawrence, Kansas |url=https://archive.org/details/constitutionalin0000whit_c0y1/page/n3/mode/2up |isbn=0-7006-0969-5}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Whittington |first=Keith E. |author-link=Keith E. Whittington |date=2013 |title=Originalism: A Critical Introduction |url=https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4927&context=flr |journal=Fordham Law Review |volume=82 |issue=2 |pages=375–409}}
• {{Cite book |last=Wurman |first=Ilan |title=A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism |date=August 2017 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1108412162 |doi=10.1017/9781108304221}}
• {{Cite book |last=Strang |first=Lee J. |url=https://www.cambridge.org/us/universitypress/subjects/law/constitutional-and-administrative-law/originalisms-promise-natural-law-account-american-constitution?format=HB&isbn=9781108475631 |title=Originalism's Promise: A Natural Law Account of the American Constitution |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2019 |isbn=978-1108475631 |doi=10.1017/9781108688093 |lccn=2019000042}}
• {{Cite journal |last=Solum |first=Lawrence B. |author-link=Lawrence B. Solum |date=2011 |title=What is Originalism? The Evolution of Contemporary Originalist Theory |url=https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2362&context=facpub |journal=Georgetown Law Journal |pages=1–41 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.1825543}}
• {{Cite book |title=The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation |date=October 2011 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9781139003926 |editor-last=Huscroft |editor-first=Grant |doi=10.1017/CBO9781139003926 |editor-last2=Miller |editor-first2=Bradley W.}}
• {{cite book |last1=Yarbrough |first1=Tinsley E. |title=Mr. Justice Black and his critics |date=1988 |publisher=Duke University Press}}

• {{cite book |title=American Dialogue: The Founders and Us |year=2018 |author=Joseph J. Ellis |publisher=Knopf |isbn=978-0385353427}}
• [http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/81480/republicans-constitution-originalism-popular?page=all Why Originalism Is So Popular] (January 13, 2011) by Eric A. Posner, The New Republic
• [https://ssrn.com/abstract=714982 Trumping Precedent with Original Meaning: Not as Radical as It Sounds] (4 May 2005) by Randy Barnett
• {{cite journal |first1=Amy Coney |last1=Barrett |first2=John Copeland |author-link=Amy Coney Barrett |last2=Nagle |url=https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1619&context=jcl |title=Congressional Originalism |volume=19 |issue=1 |journal=Journal of Constitutional Law |publisher=University of Pennsylvania |location=Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |pages=5–42 |date=October 2016}}

• [http://originalismblog.typepad.com/ The Originalism Blog] at the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism at the University of San Diego School of Law
• [http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm Lecture] by Antonin Scalia at Woodrow Wilson Center via Center for Individual Freedom comparing and contrasting originalism from the "living constitution" approach (2005)

{{Tea Party movement}}

Category:Supreme Court of the United States

Category:Conservatism in the United States

Category:United States constitutional law

Category:Intention

Category:Theories of constitutional interpretation