The argument for originalism is:
If you want to change the constitution, you have to do it through the legislature. Until Congress changes it, the constitution says what it originally said.
Law gets its life from the legislature, we should not allow the text to grow and change on its own.
If it is antiquated than Congress must fix it.
I don't agree, but I don't think it's dunder headed.
@1: That presumes that words have meaning outside of the reader. Justice Scalia believes in some sort of "mechanistic" interpretation of law; if such a method actually exists, I'm sure there are a number of computer scientists working in Natural Language Processing that would love to hear about his algorithm.
Asking "What would people who lived 200 years ago think about this issue" is a dumb question. Two years of law school have just convinced me more and more that textualism and originalism are both equally dumb constitutional interpretation strategies. Give me penumbras and emanations any day over that bullshit.
Annie - grats on being 2/3rds done. I'll be in the same place as soon as I finish writing my remaining two papers.
@1: I am aware of the argument, and I still think it's dunderheaded. Yes, legislatures create law; that's their purpose. But we'd be a civil law society if courts weren't supposed to make some law of their own. Common law inherently accords more power to the courts. Anyway, I have no idea how originalists deal with the Ninth Amendment (as I understand it, no one deals with the Ninth Amendment, but it's still an amendment). To my reading, the Ninth Amendment takes a transparent position that the Constitution extends beyond the page it is written on, and that is has things to say about issues that haven't yet come up or that the Constitution doesn't specifically address.
@2: Flattered, truly, but I'm not the 3L; my friend is. Congrats yourself. Am I saying anything stupid?
As someone who will be a 2L in a week and a half, I implore you not to blame us when we go crazy, its not our fault. Law School destroys the idealism of the law.
#4 has it: even if we cling to our outrageous notions about interpreting the law in a manner befitting the times, most of us come out convinced that no court would follow. (Don't hate the lawyers, hate the law schools...?)
The papists Supreme Court is the last straw in the destruction of a just and free America. And yet, they keep voting for Republicans. The American people will have voluntarily destroyed the last great hope of mankind. What a pity.
@3 and 2, I know the argument against originalism. In fact I am a big fan. I would also take a penumbra over a stretch back 200 years any day. But like I said, I don't think it's dunder headed.
I'm also 2/3 of the way done!!! Woo, good job 2, rock on.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).