Originalism
| Judicial interpretation |
|---|
| Forms |
|
| General rules of interpretation |
|
| General theories of interpretation |
|
| International |
|
Originalism is a legal theory in the United States which bases constitutional, judicial, and statutory interpretation of text on the original understanding at the time of its adoption. Originalism consists of a family of different theories of constitutional interpretation and can refer to original intent or original meaning.[1] Critics of originalism often turn to the competing concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that a constitution should evolve and be interpreted based on the context of current times.[2][3] Originalism should not be confused with strict constructionism.[4]
Contemporary originalism emerged during the 1980s and greatly influenced American legal culture, practice, and academia.[5] Over time, originalism became more popular and gained mainstream acceptance by 2020.[6]
- ^ Strang 2019, p. 10.
- ^ Ackerman, Bruce (2007). "The Holmes Lectures: The Living Constitution" (PDF). Harvard Law Review. 120 (7). Archived (PDF) from the original on June 20, 2022. Retrieved March 27, 2025.
- ^ Vloet, Katie (September 22, 2015). "Two Views of the Constitution: Originalism vs. Non-Originalism". University of Michigan Law School. Archived from the original on March 14, 2025. Retrieved March 14, 2025.
- ^ Scalia, Antonin. "Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws" (PDF). University of Utah. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 11, 2006. Retrieved March 7, 2022.
- ^ Strang 2019, p. 9.
- ^ Chemerinsky 2022, p. 10–12.