E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Imagine
a regime whose fundamental law is only to be found in ancient archives, whose
mysterious contents take years to unearth, layer by layer. Each new discovery brings about a revolution,
as large bodies of established law are unexpectedly discarded and others,
previously rejected, spring back into life as the scholars revise earlier
conclusions. The operations of
government are in constant confusion and disarray. And this state of affairs is likely to
persist indefinitely.
That doesn’t sound attractive, does
it?But that is where some prominent
strands of modern originalist constitutional theory would lead us.An essay that I have just posted on SSRN explores the methodological steps,
each of which in themselves had a certain plausibility, that brought us here.
I usually put a note on Balkinization as soon as I have a new paper out, but this time I was slow, and the tireless Larry Solum has already posted a response, disputing my claim that "The now dominant assumption – one might call it the New New Originalism -
is that the Constitution’s meaning can be determined by ascertaining
the semantic meaning that each term had at the time of the founding." Larry, whose understanding of contemporary originalism one doubts at one's peril, claims that "every public meaning originalist of whom I am aware rejects this approach." I can only respond that I cite some prominent work that follows precisely that approach, with the baleful implications that I describe.