Conservatives v. originalism

Article Abstract:

The adherence to originalist constitutional interpretation principles by US Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are called into question by their positions in minority set-aside, gay rights and reapportionment cases. Originalist interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in each case would suggest that the states were free to decide these issues. In the minority set-aside and reapportionment areas, originalists should be willing to defer to the states because, strictly speaking, the Fourteenth Amendment is silent on voting rights and the right to government contracts.

Gays, Laws, regulations and rules, Equality before the law, Equal protection, Apportionment (Election law)

---

Originalism and indeterminacy

Article Abstract:

Originalist reliance on historical materials for constitutional interpretation is capable of achieving a higher degree of determinacy than are the various nonoriginalist approaches. Nonoriginalists' rejection of adherence to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution is undermined by their frequent use of these materials to make legal arguments. The vast majority of issues can be resolved through originalist methodologies.

Legislative histories

---

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Five theses on originalism. Alternatives to originalism? The autonomy of law in law and economics
• Abstracts: Defining originalism. The relevance of the Framers' intent. Originalism, or who is Fred?
• Abstracts: The originalist case for Brown v. Board of Education. The political function of originalist ambiguity. "Originalist" values and constitutional interpretation

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.