Posts tagged: Originalism

The New Conservative Legal Mainstream—and Why the Left is Worried

Written by John A. Sparks

U.S. Senators Chuck Schumer and Patrick Leahy claimed that newly confirmed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch was not in the “legal mainstream.” They were referring to the “living Constitution” approach to constitutional interpretation. That interpretative approach, still thriving today and embraced by the liberal left, says that the U.S. Constitution should be a document that judges regard as one “that evolves, changes, over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended.”

This liberal mainstream might have been strong enough in 1987 to sweep away the confirmation chances of Robert Bork.… Continue Reading

Huge Number of Americans Now Say Protecting Religious Freedom is ‘Immediate Priority’

Republicans and Democrats agree. For once.

Written by Billy Hallowell

A new Marist Poll found that the majority of Americans — 89 percent — believe protecting religious freedom is an important undertaking, with 57 percent calling it an “immediate priority.”

While Republicans were the most likely (66 percent) to see the issue as one of immediate importance, the poll, which was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, found that 55 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of Independents agreed. These are intriguing findings, considering the ongoing debate over the balance between gay rights and religious liberty.… Continue Reading

The Troubling Stakes of the Originalism-Living Constitutionalism Debate

Written by Adam Seagrave

Any defense of constitutional originalism depends on accepting the principles of natural law and natural rights on which the Constitution was founded. Unfortunately, these principles no longer have meaning for most judges, politicians, and ordinary citizens today—which has troubling implications for the future of our republic.

The passing of the greatest constitutional originalist of our time invites us to reflect on the meaning and value of reading the Constitution as Justice Scalia did—in terms of the text itself as its authors intended and the public understood it.

Continue Reading

Modified by Matthew Medlen.com