Two strands of originalism

Yesterday Han highlighted the differences between two versions of constitutional originalism. On the one side, are those like Justice Clarence Thomas who contend that fidelity to the constitution requires “rolling back the welfare state, repealing regulations, and perhaps even putting an end to progressive taxation.” In contrast, Justice Antonin Scalia adapts a more pragmatic approach, arguing that “upending post-1937 case law and reversing settled principles would prove extremely disruptive, both in the courts and society at large.”

Scalia’s position is, in many

viagra online canada pharmacy

respects, intuitively appealing. Such a drastic shift in constitutional interpretation would no doubt be “disruptive” to institutions and the lives of citizens.  But, “this faint-hearted originalism” is also problematic in that it introduces a subjectivity that his theory prides itself on avoiding.

By focusing on the original meaning of the constitution, originalists seek to prevent judges from  basing their decision on personal political beliefs and values lifessence hgh. For example, the question of whether the death penalty is unconstitutional for

cialis cheap

minors depends solely on the common understanding of cruel unusual punishment at the time the constitution was ratified, not any personal feelings about capital punishment.

But, if Scalia admits that sometimes “settled principles” should be respected, than he has to make subjective choices buy branded viagra online about when originalism should be applied. Certainly rolling back the welfare state would be disruptive to a society, but so to would overturning Roe v. Wade.  There is no objective criterion for deciding when past precedent should be respected and when it can be ignored.

Perhaps Scalia is right that it would be too costly to remain faithful to originalism in all cases, but such a concession also undermines part of what makes the doctrine of originalism appealing in the first place.


Image by Flickr user stephen.makser under a Creative Commons Attribution License


Leave a Reply

  • Editors

    Jacob Bronsther is a law student at NYU. He has an MPhil in Political Theory from Oxford.

  • Sam Gill is a consultant in DC. He studied Political Theory at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.

  • Marc Grinberg is a Presidential Management Fellow. He studied Political Theory at Oxford.

  • John Rood is founder of Next Step Test Prep. He has an AM in Political Theory from Chicago.

  • Luke Freedman is studying Philosophy and Political Science at Carleton College.

  • Writers

    Jonathan Barentine

    Ethan Davison

    Han Li

    Charles Wang

  • Sign up for the TPP Weekly Rewind

  • Share us