Being an originalist

My wife and I were having a discussion about the coming election (actually ongoing election with so many already voting), and the nomination of an originalist to the Supreme Court, over breakfast recently.

Our breakfasts, and dinners for that matter, are often quite interesting.

As a Christian, the question for me always relates to the life Jesus modeled for me, and how his life can inform how I respond to these, and all other issues. Our conversation gravitated to what it means to be an originalist. Originalists believe that the constitutional text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that it became law.

That makes sense. My next question is does this include all or only part of the constitutional text? That is, is the entire Constitution included, even the amendments? If so, why don’t the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, which newly define persons, voting rights and what it means to be a citizen? Is the 19th Amendment taken into account, which gave women the right to vote?

Those amendments came into existence long after the initial ratification of the Constitution. Do they count as original? If not, why not?

Put another way, when I was in seminary I was taught that to truly understand the Old Testament from a Christian perspective, one must know and understand as much as possible the New Testament first. Because if the New Testament does not re- define the Old, what is the point of the New?

One of the major divisive issues in Christianity is that of homosexuality. And one of the arguments supporting LGBTQ inclusion is Jesus command to love one another, which supersedes any language of the Old Testament that appears to condemn homosexuality.

The earliest Christians did not have a New Testament. They were creating it. What they had was a clear understanding of the Old Testament that they re- signified in light of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. These early Christians WERE the New Testament.

So, to go back to the definition of a constitutional originalist, doesn’t it make sense that the entire document is taken into account as original, even when changes to the document take place over time? Or is originalism really only focused on the 18th century part of the document, and nothing beyond that time?

If the answer to my question is “yes” to the original 18th century document, then why aren’t we issuing muskets to those who want to own a gun? It’s what people used in the 18th century. If the answer is, “Well times have changed and we should have the right to own a gun that is more contemporary,” which is what so- called originalists argue, then are they really originalists?

I realize that my questions and answers may be too simple for some, but the nuance, and subtlety of the issues can often be revealed in simple questions.

For example, have you heard of the “five whys”? The five whys is a process of getting to the root of the matter by continuing to ask, “Why?” at least five times. Like a child asking why over and over again. And “because I said so” doesn’t count as an answer. It can be a great clarifier of one’s beliefs.

Lastly, the one consistent thing about God in the Bible is that God is always doing a new thing. Of course, the most significant new thing for Christians is Jesus. But then we also have to account for the Holy Spirit. And for the apostles and saints who came after Jesus. In the same manner wouldn’t it be prudent to account for the entire Constitution when it comes to being a Supreme Court Justice?

Now that would be original.