Given the moniker that accompanies this column, I deal more with the English language generally than with legal interpretation. But I did spend the better part of a decade collaborating closely with Justice Antonin Scalia on Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, a 608-page textbook on legal interpretation. So let’s flesh out the subject introduced last time: the difference between textualism (an approach to legal interpretation generally) and originalism (a subset of textualism dealing with an important aspect of understanding historical texts). Originalism simply posits that words and provisions in a legal document should be interpreted as they would have been understood at the time of adoption.
Both in the popular press and in legal commentary, one constantly encounters misconceptions about originalism — misconceptions that need to be dispelled. The views here expressed are those I developed with my late co-author in our collaborative work.
Comments