Justice Barrett #5 - What is Originalism

Is Justice Barrett the Latest Shot in the “Deconstruction of Government” Pt. 5 /. What is Originalism? / 11.2.20. / Much is made of Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s adherent to the Constitutional interpretation of “Originalism”. The concept is associated with Justice Scalia, for whom Barrett clerked, and with Supreme Count nominee and Appellate Court Judge Robert Bork. It would seem prudent for us to examine this interpretation in as much detail as we can manage. To do otherwise, would be a disservice to Justice Barrett and to other conservatives. The following is quoted from Wikipedia, though I will seek other sources, as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism / ----------------- In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted". This concept views the Constitution as stable from the time of enactment and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five. / [1] This notion stands in contrast to the concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the context of the current times, even if such interpretation is different from the original interpretations of the document.[2][3] / The term originated in the 1980s.[4] Originalism is an umbrella term for interpretative methods that hold to the "fixation thesis", the notion that an utterance's semantic content is fixed at the time it is uttered.[5] Originalists seek one of two alternative sources of meaning: / The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists. Alfred Avins and Raoul Berger (author of Government by Judiciary) are associated with this view. / The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Antonin Scalia and Amy Coney Barrett, are associated with this view. / Such theories share the view that there is an identifiable original intent or original meaning, contemporaneous with the ratification of a constitution or statute, which should govern its subsequent interpretation. The divisions between the theories relate to what exactly that identifiable original intent or original meaning is: the intentions of the authors or the ratifiers, the original meaning of the text, a combination of the two, or the original meaning of the text but not its expected application. ----------------- / It seems to me that determining the original intent would be very difficult and likely to become a subjective analysis. On the other hand, original meaning would seem to be more easily established within the context of multiple source records. As of yet, I’m am neutral on this interpretation. But I think it and Textualism make up much of the previous SCOTUS record. It would explain, for example, why slavery didn’t end until the 14th Amendment and women’s suffrage wasn’t universally established until the 19th Amendment. It is also a reflection of my earlier comment that Originalism, Textualism, and Strict Construction seem to exist to make determining the Constitutionality of a law or action more difficult and push proponents into the more difficult route of Constituional Amendments. / (You are invited to share your thoughts and ideas as this series proceeds. Please document or cite any assertions you make, as a means of keeping the discussion constructive and on track.)