Originalism is an interpretation of the United States Constitution based on its original meaning at the time of its ratification. Proponents of this method of interpretation believe that the document is meant to be applied in the same manner in which it was understood by the nation’s Founding Fathers. This interpretation focuses heavily on the text of the document and its associated ratifying conventions.
It helps to provide a consistent expectation of how certain actions should be taken in response to certain constitutional interpretations. It also provides a framework for determining which courses of action are legally correct when dealing with issues that may not have been explicitly addressed in the text.
What is Originalism?
Originalism is an approach to interpreting the United States Constitution that looks to the original intent of the document. It considers the founding fathers’ views and the common understanding at the time of the Constitution’s ratification. Originalism is often in contrast to “living constitutionalism,” which is an interpretation that takes into account current trends and moral considerations whilst understanding the Constitution as a flexible document.
Originalists believe that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was understood by the founders of the United States. This means that laws, decisions, and policies based on the Constitution should be consistent with their original intent. This belief is in contrast to other forms of interpreting the Constitution, such as a living interpretation, which has the flexibility of interpretation in a modern context. It is also debated compared to the ‘strict constructionist’ view, which argues that the Constitution should be interpreted literally, without taking into account its context or other considerations.
Historical Context
Originalism is a form of legal interpretation derived from the original public meaning of the U.S. Constitution at the time of its ratification. It appeals to the Framers’ intent when writing the Constitution. This was on July 21st, 1787 in Philadelphia, where debate surrounded the introduction of the Constitution to the public. Ratified by the thirteen original states in 1788, the Constitution has been the supreme law of the land since the government’s commencement in 1789.
What Do Originalists Believe?
Originalists believe that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was understood and intended at the time of its ratification. This means relying heavily on the text of the document, its ratifying conventions, and the intent of the Founding Fathers. Originalists also rely on context to determine the meaning of the Constitution. They believe that the writers of the Constitution had a certain idea in mind and that their intentions should be respected when determining how to apply it.
Originalists also argue that the Constitution should not be a “living document” subject to interpretation to match modern political and social opinions, but rather a set of laws with a specific intention and meaning that should not be significantly altered. This is in opposition to the “living Constitution” argument that suggests that the Constitution needs to be frequently amended to ensure it is up to date with modern society.
Interpreting the Constitution
Originalists argue that the only way to properly interpret the Constitution is with due respect to its original meaning and intent. This means researching the historical background of the document, the debates and discussions that took place around it, and the common understanding at the time of the ratification. Originalists believe this is the surest path to a consistent and accurate interpretation that adheres to the original intentions of the Framers.
Because of this interpretation, originalists argue that any laws, decisions, or policies should be based on the original meaning of the Constitution as it was understood by the Founding Fathers. This includes being mindful of how the Founding Fathers intended to use the Constitution to limit the powers of the government and protect the rights of the states and citizens, as stated in the 10th Amendment.
Originalism as an Alternative to Judicial Review
The United States Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power of judicial review, which allows it to determine the constitutionality of actions taken by the other branches of government. This has been a contentious issue in America, as many people argue that the Supreme Court should not be given such broad authority, or that its decisions should be subject to review through the amendment process.
That said, originalism offers an alternative to the contentious judicial review, as it places greater emphasis on the original intent of the Constitution rather than the subjective opinions of the justices. This allows for a consistent application of the Constitution’s principles, regardless of parties or individual opinions. Furthermore, originalists argue that it places the interpretation of the document where it belongs, with the Founding Fathers and within the context of the Constitution’s original meaning and purpose.
Originalism is an approach to interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning at the time of ratification. Proponents argue that the text of the document should be respected when making legal decisions, and that the original intent of the Founding Fathers should be taken into account when determining the consequences of particular actions. This interpretation is often debated in contrast to “living constitutionalism” and “strict constructionism,” with originalism offering a viable alternative to the contentious issue of judicial review. Ultimately, this approach to interpreting the Constitution provides a framework for a consistent application of the document’s original wording and intent.