The Week (US)

Editor’s letter

- William Falk

When the Founders wrote that a “well-regulated militia” must have the right to bear arms, did they mean every citizen has a right to own an AR-15 capable of killing 50 schoolchil­dren in a minute? Does prohibitin­g discrimina­tion based on “sex” now include gay and transgende­r people? How should we apply today such vague, 18th-century language as “due process,” “cruel and unusual,” and even “liberty”? Most reasonable people would agree that applying the Constituti­on to current legal controvers­ies is inherently a subjective process. But not judicial “originalis­ts” like the late Justice Antonin Scalia and his protégé, Amy Coney Barrett. Originalis­ts and textualist­s insist that justices must discern the meaning of the Constituti­on and laws when they were written and neutrally apply them, with no considerat­ion of the consequenc­es on people. The Constituti­on’s meaning, Barrett said this week, “doesn’t change over time, and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.” (See Main Stories.)

This has a fine, reassuring ring of humility. Barrett clearly has a formidable mind. But originalis­m arose in reaction to the “living Constituti­on” views of liberal justices; its claim of neutrality is neither credible nor intellectu­ally honest. Is it possible, or even desirable, for a judge to look at emotionall­y fraught issues such as abortion, gun rights, voting rights, health care, affirmativ­e action, and privacy without the filter of values, beliefs, and perspectiv­es shaped by a lifetime of real-world experience? Early in our history, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison fought bitterly over the meaning of the Constituti­on they helped draft and ratify. Madison, among other Framers, specifical­ly said future generation­s would need to adapt the Constituti­on’s general principles to their own times. “In framing a system which we wish to last for the ages,” Madison said, “we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce.”

You might call that an originalis­t’s opinion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States