A few thoughts on Originalism and the US Constitution

Originalism is a judicial philosophy, a school of thought on how legal texts should be interpreted. Its thesis is that we should understand law according to the original public meaning of the language at the time it was enacted. When it comes to the Contitution (most of it), this focuses on and celebrates what the Framers meant when they drafted the document in 1787.

Originalists tend to be sober and matter of fact about Originalism. They think the Constitution has a fixed meaning; that it does not evolve like a living document read in a social context. Not only is this right, they argue, it is practical. Originalism serves to constrain the role of judges by adhering to text, leaving little room for the judge's personal social or political viewpoint. See, e.g., <https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/conservative-us-judge-says-ai-could-strengthen-originalist-movement-2024-04-01/>.

Tacitly hidden in the appeal of Originalism is the spiritual belief that the Framers were doing something right, that their convention was an historic and heroic act of not just lawmaking for a new country but the founding of a new order for the ages. Appeals to the Founders' genius and the need to follow their original blueprint sometimes resembles appeals to religious authority. Originalists venerate the Founding Fathers/Framers and revere their work product as a part of American Exceptionalism. In sum, Originalism is rooted in the American Civic Religion.

We would/should not adopt a general rule that a group of lawyers and politicians of the late 18th century are better and wiser than lawyers/people alive on the matter of how to govern society. That's what the Framers/Founding Fathers were, by the way. I don't usually believe in prophets. We are at least as educated as they were, right? Our society is much different, more complex. Even if they were wise for their time, why would even the most cutting edge 18th century technology still exist today? They owned slaves.

At the same time, the Constitution was the product of a founding moment that was an exceptional historic achievement. On the matter of establishing government, no small matter, the Framers were uniquely wise and restrained. The Constitution is not just a typical law, but a visionary framework for limited government and ordered liberty.

Aside: Does the Constitution embody the nation's values and character? Because some people act like it does. If it does not, did it ever?

Bottom Line: The Constitution is an imperfect, idealistic legal document that is worth protecting. Its rules are based on values, mainly in the Bill of Rights but also in how it lays out the limited government with separated powers. The truth is it was a compromise document agreed upon in a specific historical and socio-political context. In sum, it's an imperfect, idealistic document worth protecting.