The US Supreme Court Just Got a Lesson in Originalism: The Constitution Isn’t a Mood Ring
George P. Brooks, a constitutional scholar, has been studying originalism, a philosophy that’s gained traction in recent years. For Brooks, originalism is more than just a way of interpreting the Constitution – it’s a warning against the dangers of chasing political fashion.
What is Originalism?
Originalism is a constitutional philosophy that argues the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning at the time of its adoption. Proponents of originalism believe this approach provides stability and consistency in judicial decision-making, making it harder for politicians to exploit the court for their own gain.
The idea is simple: if a law or policy violates the Constitution as it was written and understood at the time, it’s unconstitutional. No matter how popular or fashionable it may be, the Constitution is a fixed document that shouldn’t be subject to the whims of public opinion. As Brooks puts it, “the Constitution is not a mood ring that changes color with the prevailing cultural zeitgeist.”
Originalism vs. Living Constitution
Originalism is often pitted against the “Living Constitution” approach, which holds that the Constitution is a dynamic document that should be interpreted in light of current societal values and norms. Proponents of the Living Constitution argue that the original meaning of the Constitution may not always align with modern values, and that the court should adapt to reflect these changes.
But Brooks argues that this approach can lead to a kind of constitutional cherry-picking, where justices selectively choose which parts of the Constitution to uphold or ignore based on their own political views. This, he believes, can create a sense of instability and unpredictability in the judicial system.
What This Means
At its core, the debate over originalism is about the role of judges in interpreting the Constitution. If the court adopts an originalist approach, it will likely lead to more conservative decisions that uphold traditional interpretations of the Constitution. If, on the other hand, the court continues to follow the Living Constitution approach, we can expect to see more judicial activism and a willingness to reinterpret the Constitution in light of changing social values.
As Brooks notes, the Constitution is not a mood ring that changes color with the prevailing cultural zeitgeist. Its meaning and intent should be fixed and unchanging, regardless of how fashionable or unpopular they may be at any given time.
