Originalism and Its Discontents

Simple item page
Author(s)Goldstein, Leslie F.
Date Accessioned2024-04-30T16:51:59Z
Date Available2024-04-30T16:51:59Z
Publication Date2024-04-08
DescriptionThis 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.
AbstractEdwin 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.
CitationGoldstein, 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.
ISSN1930-5478
URLhttps://udspace.udel.edu/handle/19716/34328
Languageen_US
PublisherPerspectives on Political Science
TitleOriginalism and Its Discontents
TypeArticle
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
Originalism and Its Discontents.pdf
Size:
763.99 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Main article
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.22 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Open Access Publications