The idea that we should interpret the Constitution based on the original understanding of those who ratified it was long championed by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Yet originalism has moved far beyond Justice Scalia, as important a figure as he remains. Originalism has not only become more visible on the Supreme Court and in the federal judiciary, it’s prevalent—pervasive even—in law schools. And originalist approaches to constitutional interpretation are advocated across the political spectrum—including by liberal and progressives, not just by conservatives.
In conversation with CMC's George Thomas, Yale Law School's Akhil Amar and Northwestern Law School's Steven Calabresi, will discuss important remaining and emerging questions about originalism: What are we speaking of when we seek to understand the original meaning? Why should we be bound by original meaning? How concretely or abstractly do we apply original meaning to current issues? What if original meaning is indeterminate? What are the differences between originalism as practiced by judges and originalism as argued for by academics? And if everyone is an originalist today, does originalism have a core meaning?
