Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Throw Originalism Out. It's Time for Inclusive Constitutionalism.
Throw Originalism Out. Its Time for Inclusive Constitutionalism.Ive been thinking about how the law interprets the Constitution for years. I have an idea for how to move forward.
BY MADIBA K. DENNIE
MAY 08, 20245:45 AM
(Slate) Originalismthe once obscure legal theory now embraced by the right-wing reactionaries on the Supreme Courtshould never have taken over in the first place. The originalist ideology maintains that the meaning of the Constitution is fixed at the time of its enactment, and its provisions must be understood now as the public purportedly understood them back then. Yet the Supreme Court expressly rejected that very idea in May 1954 when it decided Brown v. Board of Education and recognized racially segregated schools as unconstitutional: We cannot turn the clock back to 1868, the court wrote with reference to the adoption of the 14th Amendment, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written.
Crucially, the courts finest moment was premised on the idea that binding legal interpretation to history is not the only wayor even a good wayto make decisions about the Constitution and the country. Brown provides a welcome reminder that originalism is the tool of segregationists, and that the theory should be treated with the same level of disdain with which comic-book Batman treats guns: This is the weapon of the enemy. We do not need it. We will not use it.
The idea that modern constitutional interpretation cant deviate from its alleged original public meaning continues to serve the same function today as it did in 1954 when it was invoked by the litigants defending segregation. The reason why the Republican justices on the Supreme Court and their enablers claim that legitimate constitutional interpretation must follow some version of American history and tradition is so that they can drag the country back to the oppressive eras for which theyre nostalgic.
If not originalism, then what? The public must recover its ability to determine what laws mean outside of originalisms strategic confines. If we the people are to build a modern equitable democracy, we must fight for an interpretive method grounded in a modern understanding of equality and democracy. I call that method inclusive constitutionalism. And I introduce it as a framework for constitutional interpretation in my forthcoming book, The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take it Back. At its core, inclusive constitutionalism refers to the idea that the Constitution must be interpreted in furtherance of an inclusive democracy, meaning a society that extends full membership to all its residents and enables them to participate equally in the nations social, political, and economic life. ...............(more)
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/05/throw-out-originalism-do-inclusive-constitutionalism.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 333 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (12)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Throw Originalism Out. It's Time for Inclusive Constitutionalism. (Original Post)
marmar
Jun 2024
OP
Igel
(35,886 posts)1. So there's a goal, and the Constitution must conform to the goal.
By hook or by crook.
That's less a rule of law and a rule made by man about what the law must be. It privileges the personhood of the judge over the clear intent of the law as codified. In that case, why codify the law--cut out the "middle-text" and just go to the Philosopher-Judge's ultimate wisdom as the final arbiter of democracy.
The legislature proposes, but the judge decrees.