Trigger Warning: This post gets into the weeds of interpretation. If you’re prone to headaches, do not read it. It will produce pain.
The City Journal is the organ of conservative think tank, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. So when it publishes about the case for originalism, you know where it’s coming from.
The Constitution, we’re told by the progressive-minded, is a “living, breathing” document that allows for such updating in the modern age. On the other side, originalists and textualists argue that the Constitution’s meaning is stable, that its words retain the meaning they possessed when they were written. The dispute has spanned more than a generation, and, with the recent death of Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia and nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Court, has taken on tremendous political weight.
Indeed, the dispute is back on the front burner with warring arguments over the meaning of “advice and consent,” and whether this is a Senate duty or a suggestion, if they feel like it. Continue reading
