A Pox on Both Your Houses, Part II: Anti-Originalist Historians
Historians' ready embrace of Madison’s Hand calls into question their purported qualifications for understanding constitutional history.
James Madison. Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787. Manuscript. James Madison Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (77.00.01) [Digital ID# us0077_01p1]A Pox on Both Your Houses, Part I: Anti-Historical Originalists
If they are to maintain credibility with those who are not already sold on their views, originalists need to respect the discipline of history.
Constitution of the United States of America. Signature page of four pages of the National Archives copy created in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. (Everett Historical/Shutterstock.com)Safe Harbor Originalism
Originalism’s success has resulted in a rapidly expanding body of scholarship by a richly diverse group of constitutional theorists, many of whom “tweak” the method in order to bring it within their preferred normative theory. This is the cost of success—everyone wants to play.
There are many ways to be an “originalist.” However, not all ways are originalist, and even those that are arguably originalist will not be equally accepted by practitioners of the method. If originalism is to maintain a degree of coherence as an interpretive option, its advocates are now pressed to define it, and to do so in a manner that distinguishes the method from its rivals while still leaving room for healthy exploration, disagreement, and development.
