Original meaning: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 23:19, 26 November 2023

Redirect to:

Originalism

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+#REDIRECT [[Originalism]]
-{{original research|date=March 2010}}
-{{refimprove|date=March 2010}}
-{{Judicial interpretation}}
-In the context of [[United States]] [[constitutional interpretation]], '''original meaning''' is the dominant form of the [[law|legal theory]] of [[originalism]] today. It was made popular by Supreme Court Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] and contends that the terms of the [[United States Constitution]] should be interpreted as meaning what they meant when they were ratified, which is to say, it asks the question: "What would a [[reasonable person]] living at the time of ratification have understood these words to mean?"
+{{Rcat shell|
-The theory stands in equal opposition to [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-interpretivist/ interpretivist] theories such as [[original intent]], and [[Legal realism|legal realist]] theories such as that of the [[Living Constitution]].
+{{R to related topic}}
+}}
-==Theory==
-Original meaning is a [[legal formalism|formalist]] theory, and a logical extension of [[textualism]]. Textualists believe that a statute means whatever the [[Plain meaning rule|plain meaning]] of its words is, as opposed to other potential meanings, such as what those who drafted the law or voted for it ''intended'' it to say. Formalists would point out that it is unnecessary for any member of the legislature to share the intentions of any other member of the legislature, or even to ''have'' a particular intent; what counts is their vote, just as if a voter enters a polling station while [[inebriated]], and indicates a preference for the wrong candidate, their vote will count as a vote for the person they indicated on the ballot paper, not for the candidate for whom they intended to vote before they started drinking. Likewise, even if not a single member of the legislature has read and comprehended the effect of a given bill (a scenario some [[USA Patriot Act#Controversy|critics of the USA PATRIOT Act]] allege to have actually occurred during its enactment), once it becomes law, it is a law no less or more valid than an identically worded law passed when every member of the legislature is of the same mind and understanding regarding its meaning an deffect. This being the case, it is the text of the law which governs.
-==Practice==
-An Originalist inquiry into the original ''meaning'' of the Constitution is able to cast a much broader net than an inquiry into the original ''intent''.
-Originalists of all stripes cite the ''[[Federalist Papers]]''. It is fairly tenuous to suggest that this represents a good source for the original ''intent'' - after all, [[Alexander Hamilton]], who wrote the lion's share of those essays, was absent for the greater part of the [[Philadelphia Convention]], and [[John Jay]] did not attend it at all. However, James Madison, the principle framer of the Constitution also wrote a substantial amount of the federalist papers. And to suggest Hamilton and Jay's absence from the convention implies their ignorance as to the Constitution's original meaning is demeaning to those two men and inaccurate. The collected anti-Federalist papers, of course, will be no use at all to a person searching for the original ''intent'' of the framers. But as evidence of how a reasonable person at the time would have understood the words of the Constitution, the ''Federalist Papers'' and the antifederalist essays are evidence of direct relevance.
-Likewise, neither [[John Adams]] nor [[Thomas Jefferson]] attended the Convention, and thus two of the most prolific writers of the founding era are necessarily excluded (or, at best, abstracted) from an original-intent inquiry.  Because they were reasonable contemporaries of the Framers, their writings are informative to discussions of the text's original meaning.
-One of the primary virtues of original meaning over original intent is that the original meaning is a fairly discernible thing, while the original intent is nebulous and uncertain. This is well-illustrated by the use of dictionaries. Even out the playing field contemporaneous dictionaries are of dubious value to an original ''intent'' inquiry, but of high value to an original ''meaning'' inquiry: we can establish what the words the Framers chose ''meant'', but that is not ''necessarily'' conclusive as to what they ''intended'' to say (consider for example, the [[unintended consequences|law of unintended consequences]]).
-==Origins==
-The theory was arguably pioneered and popularized by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]; whether Scalia can take credit for inventing it, he remains one of its most forceful and high-profile proponents, although he is also accused of deviating from the method (he has himself admitted that "in a crunch I may prove a faint-hearted originalist") (Scalia, ''Originalism: The Lesser Evil'', [http://www.joink.com/homes/users/ninoville/lesserevil.asp#864 57 U. Cin. L. Rev. 849 at 864]) into the territory of [[Bad originalism]].
-==Selected Quotes==
-One prominent proponent of original meaning is [[Supreme Court]] justice [[Anton Scalia]], who said:
-:''The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things''<ref>http://www.acsblog.org/judiciary-justice-scalia-advocates-of-a-living-constitution-are-idiots.html</ref>
-Justice Thomas has said:
-:''Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial.''<ref>{{cite web | url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445985683948619.html | title=How to Read the Constitution | date=2008-10-20 | publisher=The Wall Street Journal}}</ref>
-==See also==
-*[[Judicial activism]]
-*[[Legal formalism]]
-*[[Originalism]]
-*Cf. [[Original intent]]
-*[[Textualism]]
-==References==
-<references/>
-[[Category:Philosophy of law]]