Originalism moves from theory to high court. What that means for US.

In June 1986, at an otherwise nondescript Attorney General’s Conference on Economic Liberties, Antonin Scalia made an iconic sales pitch.

Originalism – a judicial theory holding that the Constitution should be interpreted in line with the framers’ thinking – needed rebranding, he told the conference. Originalists, he said, “ought to campaign to change the label from the doctrine of original intent to the doctrine of original meaning.”

In other words, instead of trying to intuit what James Madison or Alexander Hamilton may have intended, rely on what the public would have understood their words to mean at the time, using contemporary dictionaries and news coverage among other sources…

Click here to read the full article.

• ← Why abortion fight isn’t over if Roe is overturned
• A step toward better justice: Prying open the ‘black box’ of plea deals →