Originalism and Its Discontents
Date
2024-04-08
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Perspectives on Political Science
Abstract
Edwin Chemerinsky’s book is as much an attack on the defenses of originalism as it is an attack on the theory itself. People who call themselves “originalists” defend it with the simple argument that the Constitution is meant to be a law adopted by “the people” of the United States that not only establishes their government but restrains it. Like other laws, the Constitution can be amended. But until it is, say originalists, it must mean what it always meant. Otherwise, if subsequent officials, such as Supreme Court Justices, willfully alter its meaning on their own, then they are ruling by personal fiat rather than following law. And such rule is wrong; it violates the sovereignty of the people, which the Constitution was meant to establish.
Description
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Perspectives on Political Science on 04/08/2024, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2024.2309851. © 2024 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. This article will be embargoed until 10/08/2025.
Keywords
Citation
Goldstein, Leslie F. “Originalism and Its Discontents.” Perspectives on Political Science 53, no. 2 (April 2, 2024): 66–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2024.2309851.