Several months ago, I praised law professor Lawrence B. Solum’s case for the “truth of semantic originalism.” Now available online is Solum’s 132-page draft article titled “Semantic Originalism” (April 14, 2008 version) in which he develops his argument more fully. I’m only some 20 pages into my first read through the article, but I’m confident that anyone seriously interested in debates over originalism will find it worth reading and studying.

Here’s Solum’s basic argument, as outlined in his introduction: (1) the semantic content of the Constitution is fixed at the time of adoption (the “fixation thesis”); (2) the semantic content of the Constitution is its original public meaning (the “clause meaning thesis”); (3) the semantic content of the Constitution contributes to (but need not fully determine) the content of constitutional law; and (4) we have a defeasible obligation to respect the semantic content of the Constitution (the “fidelity thesis”). If all this sounds very academic and remote, I assure you that Solum writes very clearly and carefully.

This summary passage of Solum’s (pp. 22-23) jumped out at me:

“The core of originalism is based on common sense about the meaning of the constitutional text and the nature of law. Once the claims or originalism are pruned of ideological excess and theoretical confusion, the common sense appeal of originalism is difficult to resist. Anti-originalists needed fancy theories to defend the counterintuitive positions to which they were driven by their attempts to reconcile deep tensions between their core commitments.”

That’s sure how it’s always seemed to me (as I spell out in my “Are You an Originalist?” test).