 | The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (November 2023) |
| Judicial interpretation |
|---|
| Forms |
| General rules of interpretation |
| General theories of interpretation |
Originalism is a legal theory that bases constitutional, judicial, and statutory interpretation of text on the original understanding at the time of its adoption. Proponents of the theory object to judicial activism and other interpretations related to a living constitution framework. Instead, originalists argue for democratic modifications of laws through the legislature or through constitutional amendment.[1]
Originalism consists of a family of different theories of constitutional interpretation and can refer to original intent or original meaning.[2] Critics of originalism often turn to the competing concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that a constitution should evolve and be interpreted based on the context of current times.[3][4] Originalism should not be confused with strict constructionism.[5]
Contemporary originalism emerged during the 1980s and greatly influenced American legal culture, practice, and academia.[6] Over time, originalism became more popular and gained mainstream acceptance by 2020.[7]
- ^ Alt, Robert (November 15, 2022). "Originalism Bolsters the Democratic Process by Checking Judges". Retrieved May 3, 2024.
- ^ Strang 2019, p. 10.
- ^ Ackerman, Bruce (January 1, 2017). "The Holmes Lectures: The Living Constitution". Yale University Law School.
- ^ Vloet, Katie (September 22, 2015). "Two Views of the Constitution: Originalism vs. Non-Originalism". University of Michigan Law.
- ^ Scalia, Antonin. "Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws" (PDF). University of Utah. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 11, 2006. Retrieved March 7, 2022.
- ^ Strang 2019, p. 9.
- ^ Chemerinsky 2022, p. 10–12.