What's Happening?
Jill Lepore, in The Atlantic's October cover story, argues that the radical legal philosophy of originalism has undermined the process of constitutional evolution. Lepore contends that the Constitution was intended to be a living document, capable of change and amendment over time. She criticizes originalism for pretending to return to the Founders' original meaning while effecting constitutional change. Lepore highlights the low amendment rate of the U.S. Constitution, noting that only 27 amendments have been ratified despite thousands being proposed. She attributes the stagnation in constitutional amendments to the rise of originalism, particularly under Justice Antonin Scalia and the Trump-era Supreme Court.
Why It's Important?
Lepore's critique of originalism is significant as it challenges a dominant legal philosophy that influences Supreme Court decisions. The debate over originalism impacts how laws are interpreted and applied, affecting public policy and societal norms. Lepore's analysis suggests that originalism may hinder necessary constitutional amendments, potentially stalling progress on issues like civil rights and governance. The discussion raises questions about the balance between historical fidelity and contemporary relevance in constitutional law.
Beyond the Headlines
Lepore's argument touches on broader ethical and philosophical questions about the nature of law and governance. The tension between originalism and constitutional evolution reflects deeper cultural and ideological divides in American society. The debate may influence future judicial appointments and legal education, shaping the next generation of legal thinkers and policymakers.
