As a law student, the predominant theory of constitutional interpretation was the “living Constitution.” That’s what we were taught. That’s what we believed to be right. It made sense, as the document ratified in 1789 couldn’t possibly account for all that would follow, and the only way it could survive was to evolve to address the needs of a nation over time. Frankly, I never thought all that hard about it at the time. All the prawfs said so, and so it was.
As the word “originalism” began to emerge as an alternative to interpretation, I was forced to give it some thought. I didn’t want to, as thinking was hard and could lead to unpleasant things, like headaches. Who needed that? But then, emanations and penumbras never really made a lot of sense, even when the outcome was something with which I agreed. As a principled approach, it was essentially, “we want to get there and, well, we got nothing, so emanations and penumbras, baby.” Sure, I would take it when it worked in my favor, but that nagging idea that it would eventually turn on me, bite me in the butt, was disturbing. Continue reading
