'Original' Means Old, 'Original' Means New: An 'Original' Look at What 'Originalists' Do
Harold Anthony Lloyd
Wake Forest University School of Law
67 National Lawyers Guild Review 135 (2010)
This article explores two different forms of Constitutional "originalism." One form (espoused by Justice Thomas in 2008) purports to embrace the intent of a specific oracular group while the other form (that of Justice Scalia) purports to embrace the original meaning of the Constitution’s text. Though originalism in either form may have initial common sense appeal, both forms of originalism founder upon analysis. Deconstructing such flawed doctrines proves useful in constructing a more sensible approach to Constitutional interpretation. This more sensible approach recognizes and respects, among other things, three levels of Constitutional meaning: purpose embodied in the Constitution's Preamble, the non-Preamble textual frame, and solutions to the issues framed. The landmark civil rights case of Lawrence v. Texas serves as a good example of such three-tiered analysis and demonstrates how “original” means both old and new in Constitutional interpretation.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 31
Keywords: Originalism, Original Intent, Original Meaning, Interpretation, Constitutional Interpretation, Semantics, Semiotics, Judicical Activism, Meaning, Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Preamble, Lawrence v. Texas, Gay RightsAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: January 22, 2011 ; Last revised: June 3, 2012
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.235 seconds