—
Mayor Pete explains the logical inconsistencies within the judicial philosophy of “Originalism” — back before it had become the precedent-shredding mechanism, that it has today.
—
Pete Buttigieg brilliantly explains the problems with Constitutional 'originalism'
by Annie Reneau, upworthy.com — Oct 13, 2020
[… Pete Buttigieg: ]
‘”At the end of the day, rights in this country have been expanded because courts have understood what the true meaning of the letter of the law and the spirit of the Constitution is. And that is not about time traveling yourself back to the 18th century and subjecting yourself to the same prejudices and limitations as the people who write these words.
The Constitution is a living document because the English language is a living language, and you need to have some readiness to understand that in order to serve on the court in a way that's going to make life better. It was actually Thomas Jefferson himself who said 'we might as well ask a man to wear the coat that fitted him when he was a boy' as expect future generations to live under what he called 'the regime of their barbarous ancestors.'
So even the founders that these kind of dead-hand originalists claim fidelity to understood better than their ideological descendants — today's judicial so-called conservatives — the importance of keeping with the times. And we deserve judges and justices who understand that."
[emphasis added]
— —
US law
: a legal philosophy that the words in documents and especially the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they were written
Some judges believe the best way to interpret the Constitution … lies in an approach called originalism. The judges who follow this approach look to history to discover what those who wrote the Constitution most likely thought about the content and scope of a constitutional phrase, and they interpret the phrase accordingly. — Stephen Breyer
The main point of originalism, which has driven conservative legal theory for a generation, is that the Constitution does not evolve. — Garrett Epps
— —
There are many reasons why the idea of Originalism is faulty.
Not least among them, are that many of the “Founders” thought it was “acceptable” to own slaves, to oppress women, and to only allow land-owning men the right to vote.
The country has moved on from those archaic ideas and worldviews of our “barbarous ancestors” (as Founder Jefferson put it). It is long past time that Justices of the Supreme Court move on too.
Values evolve. Rights expand.
It can be argued that THIS ^^^ is exactly what the Founders intended: Otherwise they would have allowed no provisions for the Constitution itself, to be Amended.
If their “original intent” were that the Constitution was ‘written in stone’ — no such provisions to change it, would have been included in the Document, itself.
They intended that future generations strive for “a more perfect Union” — not that we would hold onto their mistakes of the past.
— —