{"id":971,"date":"2019-04-19T11:17:04","date_gmt":"2019-04-19T16:17:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/?p=971"},"modified":"2019-07-03T23:28:35","modified_gmt":"2019-07-04T04:28:35","slug":"moving-the-great-debate-on-originalism-theory-forward","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=971","title":{"rendered":"Moving the Great Debate on Originalism Theory Forward"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"book<\/p>\n

Photo by Giammarco Boscaro<\/a> on Unsplash<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Georgetown Law\u2019s Professor Lawrence B. Solum<\/a> discussed his forthcoming article, Originalism versus Living Constitutionalism: The Conceptual Structure of the Great Debate<\/em>,at the recent Northwestern University Law Review <\/em>2018 Symposium: Originalism 3.0<\/a>. Professor William Ewald<\/a> from the University of Pennsylvania provided commentary, and Northwestern Law Professor Joshua Kleinfeld<\/a> moderated the panel.<\/p>\n

Professor Solum began the discussion by sharing his inspiration for the article. While this article comprises part of a larger scholarly work in defense of originalism theory, Solum was inspired to write this article in part due to the uncertainty over what counts as \u201coriginalism.\u201d<\/p>\n

The goal of his metalinguistic proposal is to better frame the ongoing substantive debate between originalists and living constitutionalists about the best theory of constitutional interpretation. To this end, Solum provides conceptual definitions of \u201coriginalism\u201d and \u201cliving constitutionalism\u201d in the hopes of eliminating confusion about the boundaries of each theory. Solum defines \u201coriginalism\u201d as a family of constitutional theories that affirm two principles: the Fixation Thesis (the meaning of the constitutional text is fixed at the time each provision is drafted) and the Constraint Principle (constitutional practice should be consistent with the original meaning). He then defines \u201cliving constitutionalism\u201d as \u201cnonoriginalist constitutional theories that affirm the view that constitutional practice can and should change in response to changing circumstances and values.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the interest of moving this substantive debate forward, Solum emphasized the importance of shared terminology and distinguishing domains of discourse: \u201cIf participants in the debates about originalism and living constitutionalism are talking past one another, it is difficult to identify what is really at stake in the debate, much less make progress in the clarification and resolution of the issues that are the focus of true substantive debates.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a lively question-and-answer session, audience members posed numerous questions related to the difficulty of defining living constitutionalism, which at a minimum encompasses twenty-two theories, and the differences between academic originalism and judicial originalism. While some of the heady theoretical debate about Thayer and Dworkin was above this second-year law student\u2019s head, Solum\u2019s proposal was persuasive; if academics and judges can agree on a shared set of conceptual definitions, the debate can focus on the issues that matter, namely the substantive and normative issues of which interpretation theory provides the most just outcome.<\/p>\n

So, with this new shared conceptual framework as a starting point, which side is poised to win the great debate? That remains to be seen, but thanks to Professor Solum, we now have the conceptual vocabulary to ground the debate.<\/p>\n

Professor Solum\u2019s full article will be published in April 19, 2019 in the Northwestern University Law Review<\/em>\u2019s Symposium edition.<\/p>\n

Emily McCormick is a student at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and Symposium Editor of the Northwestern University Law Review for the\u00a02019\u20132020 Editorial Board.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Photo by Giammarco Boscaro on Unsplash Georgetown Law\u2019s Professor Lawrence B. Solum discussed his forthcoming article, Originalism versus Living Constitutionalism: The Conceptual Structure of the Great Debate,at the recent Northwestern University Law Review 2018 Symposium: Originalism 3.0. Professor William Ewald from the University of Pennsylvania provided commentary, and Northwestern Law Professor Joshua Kleinfeld moderated the panel. Professor Solum began the discussion by sharing his inspiration for the article. While this article comprises part of a larger scholarly work in defense…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":74,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[14],"tags":[46,53,15],"class_list":["post-971","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-symposium","tag-originalism","tag-student","tag-symposium"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9jSvD-fF","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":959,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=959","url_meta":{"origin":971,"position":0},"title":"Grounding Originalism: A Panel Discussion Moving from Legal Theory to Legal Practice","author":"Andrew Borrasso","date":"April 19, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Photo by Anthony Garand on Unsplash Is originalism correct? What might make it so? Grounding Originalism, a forthcoming Essay by Professors William Baude and Stephen E. Sachs, tackles these questions by moving from legal theory to legal empirics in an effort to provide a coherent\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Symposium"","block_context":{"text":"Symposium","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=14"},"img":{"alt_text":"We The people text","src":"https:\/\/images.unsplash.com\/photo-1515040242872-08257d6d08c2?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=1000&q=80","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":982,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=982","url_meta":{"origin":971,"position":1},"title":"Sources of Rights: Originalism and Thayerism","author":"Joe Blass","date":"April 19, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash At Northwestern University Law Review\u2019s Symposium on Originalism 3.0, Professor Steven Calabresi presented a paper critiquing a Thayerian approach to judicial handling of unenumerated rights. The session was moderated by Professor James Pfander, with commentary by Professor Jamal Greene\u00a0of Columbia University Law School. Professor\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Symposium"","block_context":{"text":"Symposium","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=14"},"img":{"alt_text":"brown mallet on gray wooden surface","src":"https:\/\/images.unsplash.com\/photo-1555374018-13a8994ab246?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=1000&q=80","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":63,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=63","url_meta":{"origin":971,"position":2},"title":"A Fear of Too Much (Criminal) Justice: Social Science Evidence and the Tension Between Reform and Transformation in the Criminal Justice System","author":"Hillary Chutter-Ames","date":"October 30, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"McCleskey v. Kemp\u00a0(1987) was an example of \u201cgood-enough-for-black-people kind of justice.\u201d At least, that was how Professor Paul Butler (Georgetown) characterized the seminal death penalty case under discussion at the recent Northwestern University Law Review Symposium, A Fear of Too Much Justice?: Equal Protection and the Social Sciences 30 Years\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Symposium"","block_context":{"text":"Symposium","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=14"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/IMG_0599-1024x610.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/IMG_0599-1024x610.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/IMG_0599-1024x610.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1127,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1127","url_meta":{"origin":971,"position":3},"title":"The Historiographical Context of “Revisiting James Bradley Thayer”","author":"G. Edward White","date":"February 17, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"The following piece is a part of NULR of Note's \u201cBring Back The \u201890s\u201d initiative, aimed at exploring the evolution of legal thinking over the past three decades. For more, click here. Photo by\u00a0Sebastian Pichler\u00a0on\u00a0Unsplash The 1993 Symposium in which Revisiting James Bradley Thayer appeared was prompted by the centennial\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Bring Back the '90s"","block_context":{"text":"Bring Back the '90s","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=56"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/sebastian-pichler-bAQH53VquTc-unsplash.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/sebastian-pichler-bAQH53VquTc-unsplash.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/sebastian-pichler-bAQH53VquTc-unsplash.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/sebastian-pichler-bAQH53VquTc-unsplash.jpg?resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/sebastian-pichler-bAQH53VquTc-unsplash.jpg?resize=1050%2C600 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/sebastian-pichler-bAQH53VquTc-unsplash.jpg?resize=1400%2C800 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":135,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=135","url_meta":{"origin":971,"position":4},"title":"Equal Protection and the Social Sciences Beyond Criminal Justice","author":"Noor Tarabishy","date":"November 7, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Following a discussion about the use of social science evidence in the criminal justice system at the Northwestern University Law Review Symposium, Professor Laura Beth Nielsen\u00a0(Northwestern, Sociology) moderated a panel that explored the varying degrees of success social science has had and the challenges faced by advocates in civil rights\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "On Campus"","block_context":{"text":"On Campus","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=17"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0606-1024x613.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0606-1024x613.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0606-1024x613.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":167,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=167","url_meta":{"origin":971,"position":5},"title":"Leveraging Social Science Evidence in the Courts Today","author":"Meredith McBride","date":"November 17, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"United States District Judges Edmond E. Chang, Sara L. Ellis, and Virginia M. Kendall comprised the fourth and final panel of the Northwestern University Law Review\u2019s October 20, 2017 symposium, \u201c\u2018A Fear of Too Much Justice\u2019?: Equal Protection and the Social Sciences 30 Years after McCleskey v. Kemp,\"\u00a0engaging questions of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "On Campus"","block_context":{"text":"On Campus","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=17"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0607-1-1024x509.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0607-1-1024x509.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0607-1-1024x509.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/971","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/74"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=971"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/971\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}