Originalism is the view that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to their **original public meaning** at the time of ratification. Judges seek the best historical understanding of the text’s semantic content and then apply it to modern disputes.
# Core commitments - The Constitution’s meaning was **fixed at adoption** (though applications can evolve). - Interpretation focuses on **public meaning**, not secret intent of framers. - Where text is underdeterminate, judges may use **history and tradition** and established **constitutional structure** before turning to construction.
# Methods & tools - Text analysis keyed to **founding-era usage** (dictionaries, corpus linguistics). - **Historical sources**: debates, legal treatises, statutes, and practice contemporaneous with adoption. - Distinguish **interpretation** (ascertaining meaning) from **construction** (implementing vague standards).
# Strengths claimed - **Democratic legitimacy**: binds judges to the enacted text. - **Constraint and predictability**: reduces personal value choices. - **Continuity**: anchors adjudication in the constitutional settlement.
# Common critiques - **Selective history** risks bias; evidence can be thin or conflicting. - **Translation problems**: bridging 18th/19th-century meanings to modern contexts. - **Underdeterminacy**: many clauses are broad (e.g., “due process”), requiring nonhistorical judgment anyway.
# Close contrasts - Textualism shares attention to text but does not require historical meaning to dominate. - Living Constitutionalism gives more weight to evolving practice and contemporary needs.
# Notes - See District of Columbia v. Heller for an original-public-meaning analysis of the Second Amendment.