Jill Lepore on the Constitution: Originalism vs. Living Document

Critiquing Originalism

• 💡 Historian Jill Lepore argues that originalism, a judicial philosophy, is not historically original, despite its claims.
• 🎯 She states that the historical record shows the framers did not interpret the Constitution in the way originalists propose.
• 🔑 Originalism, by its current name, emerged in the 1980s, with roots tracing back to 1971, as a reaction to a liberal Supreme Court.

The Constitution as a Living Document

• 📜 Lepore views the Constitution, with its 27 amendments, as a narrative of American history, reflecting the idea that the people are its authors.
• ⚠️ She expresses concern that abandoning the idea of amending the Constitution leads to its potential abuse and questions the legitimacy of the political system.
• ✍️ The capacity of the people to amend the Constitution is presented as a fundamental mechanism that, if not working, challenges the Constitution's functionality.

Historical Context of Constitutional Interpretation

• 🏛️ The concept of the "Founding Fathers" was popularized during the Progressive Era as a means to counter progressive social reform.
• 🌍 Americans' view of the Constitution as a sacred text is a feature, but also an artifact of a specific historical moment.
• 🗺️ The true history of the Constitution lies not just in Supreme Court archives but in the ongoing contestation and arguments among the American people.