🦢Constitutional Law I Unit 20 – Constitutional Interpretation: Originalism vs. Living

Key Concepts and Definitions

• Originalism interprets the Constitution based on the original meaning at the time it was adopted
• Living Constitution views the Constitution as a dynamic document that evolves with changing times and values
• Textualism focuses on the plain meaning of the constitutional text without considering external sources
• Strict constructionism narrowly interprets the Constitution's text and grants limited powers to the federal government
• Judicial activism occurs when judges make rulings based on personal or political considerations rather than the law
• Judicial restraint limits the power of judges to strike down laws unless they clearly violate the Constitution
• Stare decisis is the legal principle of adhering to precedent when making judicial decisions
  • Provides stability and predictability in the law
  • Can be overturned if a past decision is deemed erroneous or societal conditions have significantly changed

Historical Context

• The Constitution was drafted in 1787 by the Founding Fathers (James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and others)
• Ratified in 1788, the Constitution established the framework for the U.S. government and the rights of citizens
• Bill of Rights, comprising the first ten amendments, was added in 1791 to protect individual liberties
• Interpretation debates arose early in U.S. history, such as the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case establishing judicial review
• Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) passed after the Civil War expanded civil rights and federal power
• Progressive Era (early 20th century) saw increased calls for a more flexible interpretation of the Constitution
• Warren Court (1953-1969) issued landmark rulings on civil rights, criminal procedure, and privacy using a living Constitution approach
• Conservative backlash in the late 20th century led to the rise of originalism as a response to perceived judicial overreach

Originalism: Principles and Advocates

• Originalists believe the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original public meaning
• Emphasizes the importance of adhering to the text and the intent of the Framers
• Argues that originalism constrains judicial discretion and prevents judges from imposing personal preferences
• Prominent originalists include Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch
• Robert Bork, a legal scholar and failed Supreme Court nominee, was an influential proponent of originalism
• Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization, has been instrumental in promoting originalist judges
• Critics argue that originalism can lead to outdated and unjust outcomes, ignoring societal progress
  • Example: Originalist interpretation might not protect same-sex marriage or women's rights, which were not originally contemplated

Living Constitution: Principles and Advocates

• Living constitutionalists believe the Constitution should be interpreted in light of contemporary values and needs
• Argues that the Framers intended the Constitution to adapt to changing times through interpretation
• Emphasizes the role of the judiciary in protecting individual rights and promoting social justice
• Prominent living constitutionalists include Supreme Court Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg
• David Strauss, a legal scholar, has defended common law constitutionalism, a form of living constitutionalism
• American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization, advocates for a living Constitution approach
• Critics argue that living constitutionalism allows judges to impose personal preferences and undermines democratic accountability
  • Example: Living constitutionalist interpretation might protect abortion rights or affirmative action, which are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution

Comparative Analysis

• Originalism prioritizes the original meaning and intent of the Constitution, while living constitutionalism emphasizes contemporary values and needs
• Originalists view the judiciary's role as interpreting and applying the law, while living constitutionalists see judges as agents of social change
• Originalism is associated with judicial restraint and deference to the political branches, while living constitutionalism is linked to judicial activism
• Originalists argue their approach provides stability and prevents judicial overreach, while living constitutionalists believe it allows the Constitution to remain relevant
• Living constitutionalists criticize originalism as leading to unjust outcomes, while originalists argue living constitutionalism undermines the rule of law
• In practice, many judges and scholars adopt a combination of originalist and living constitutionalist principles
  • Example: Justice Kennedy's "emerging awareness" doctrine in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) combined originalist and living constitutionalist elements

Notable Court Cases and Rulings

• Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review, allowing courts to strike down unconstitutional laws
• Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) used an originalist interpretation to deny citizenship rights to African Americans, later overturned by the 14th Amendment
• Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) upheld racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine, reflecting a narrow interpretation of the 14th Amendment
• Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned Plessy using a living constitutionalist approach, finding segregation inherently unequal
• Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) recognized a constitutional right to privacy, a key example of living constitutionalist interpretation
• Roe v. Wade (1973) extended the right to privacy to protect abortion rights, a controversial living constitutionalist ruling
• District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) used an originalist approach to interpret the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to bear arms
• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, employing a mix of originalist and living constitutionalist reasoning

Modern Debates and Implications

• The balance of the Supreme Court has shifted towards originalism with recent conservative appointments (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett)
• Contentious issues like abortion, gun rights, and LGBTQ+ equality are at the center of ongoing interpretation debates
• Originalists argue their approach is necessary to prevent judicial overreach and maintain the separation of powers
• Living constitutionalists contend that a flexible interpretation is essential to protect individual rights and adapt to social change
• The interpretation divide has significant implications for the role and legitimacy of the judiciary in American democracy
• Confirmation hearings for federal judges have become increasingly polarized along originalist and living constitutionalist lines
• The interpretation debate reflects broader disagreements about the nature of constitutional government and the meaning of the rule of law
• As society continues to evolve, the tension between originalism and living constitutionalism is likely to persist and shape legal and political discourse

Critiques and Controversies

• Originalism is criticized for being difficult to apply, as the Framers' intent and original public meaning can be unclear or contested
• Living constitutionalism is accused of allowing judges to impose personal policy preferences under the guise of interpretation
• Some argue that both approaches are inevitably shaped by the interpreter's own values and biases
• The interpretation debate is often proxy for deeper ideological and partisan divisions in American politics
• Critics argue that the focus on interpretation obscures the role of power and inequality in shaping constitutional outcomes
• The lack of diversity in the legal profession and judiciary may skew interpretation towards privileged perspectives
• The interpretation divide has contributed to declining public confidence in the impartiality and legitimacy of the courts
• Some scholars call for alternative approaches, such as democratic constitutionalism or popular constitutionalism, to bridge the divide
  • Example: Democratic constitutionalism emphasizes the role of political branches and popular movements in shaping constitutional meaning