The Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism at the University of San Diego School of Law has launched “The Originalism Blog” to be devoted to cataloging and reviewing developments in scholarship and interest in originalism.
“Originalism”, in the words of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, “is the view that the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning established at the time of its enactment.”
Originalism, in other words, is the idea that the words of our Constitution mean what they say, either what the drafters of the Constitution meant them to say when they wrote them, or what the ratifiers of the Constitution understood them to say when they voted to approve them.
But these are only a few of many possible beginnings to an understanding of the influence of originalism upon Constitutional interpretation.
Hence, the need for “The Originalism Blog.”
Connstitutional originalism is the point to which “living constitutionalsim” is the counterpoint, rejected by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in the following exchange with Peter Robinson of The Hoover Institution:
“The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living, but dead.”
Is our Constitution living, is it dead, or is it a dead letter?
If I’ve piqued your interest, I encourage you to take a look at Legal Theory Lexicon 019: Originalism, by Lawrence B. Solum.
And if these questions are as interesting to you as they are to me, you’ll want to bookmark The Originalism Blog and return to it often.