10/14 Flashback: Originalism is more evil than dumb

Last updated on: October 14, 2022 at 7:25 am by Fred Clark

10/14 Flashback: Originalism is more evil than dumb 2022-10-14T07:25:34-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

From October 14, 2020, “‘Originalism’ denies — and despises — the ‘new birth of freedom’”

Any talk of the “original intent” or “original meaning” of the Constitution that doesn’t acknowledge the revolutionary transformation of the Reformation Amendments is ignorant, misleading, and false.

And yet none of the judicial champions of “originalism” ever seems to concern themselves with anything that happened after the 18th century. Their concept of “origins” wears a powdered wig, never a stovepipe hat and a beard. The radical change of the second founding, what Lincoln called our “new birth of freedom,” isn’t something so-called originalists understand or account for. The ways in which the Constitution and the nation were so dramatically changed after the Civil War are so wholly disregarded by these originalists that it’s surprising they don’t treat “the United States” as a plural noun.

This isn’t the only problem with the faux-naive pretense of “originalism” — a infinitely elastic and pliable construct that strip-mines the past for whatever it finds convenient or useful. But it is a huge, ridiculously foolish characteristic of the scheme. It means that an originalist is basically someone who tells you a butterfly is not a butterfly because caterpillars don’t have wings.

Metamorphosis isn’t too grand an analogy for the pervasive changes wrought by the second founding and the revolution encoded in the Reconstruction Amendments. These were not tacked on as additions to the existing Constitution as it was written or “intended” in 1789. They transformed the whole of the thing, enriching and deepening and expanding the meaning of the rest of the document. There’s a reason we call the Radical Republicans of that era “radical.” They reached down to the roots of the Constitution and turned the whole of it into something new.

And yet, today, these Founding Fathers are as invisible to the judicial activists wearing the mask of “originalism” as they are invisible to the children force-fed David Barton’s Christian nationalist propaganda instead of real history. This oversight is so monumental that it’s difficult to imagine it could be accidental. And we have good reason to conclude that it is not.

The problem with originalism isn’t that it merely ignores the Reconstruction Amendments, but that it deliberately, actively, and willfully avoids them. Or, in other words, “originalists” aren’t ignorantly acting as though the transformation of the Constitution after the Civil War never happened, they are deliberately attempting to create an America in which that transformation never happened. The Reconstruction Amendments are not a blindspot for originalists, they’re a bullseye — an indication of what it is they’re targeting and seeking to destroy.

Nowhere is this clearer than in any discussion of the Constitution and the right to vote. Originalists will pretend that right is not explicitly protected in the Constitution and that the Constitution was never intended to create or to guarantee or to protect any such right.

This pretense can’t survive any encounter with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. And it is utterly demolished by even the briefest consideration of the “original intent” of the founders who drafted and debated and enacted those amendments. Those debates are as well-documented as any of the 18th-century discussions that originalists love to cite when seeking evidence of “original intent” from that earlier period that might support whatever agenda they’re seeking to declare lawful or unlawful. And those heated, detailed debates about the meaning and intent of the Reconstruction Amendments center around the founders’ shared conviction that the right to vote is sacred and paramount. The question of whether such a right existed was an absurdity to those founders — a question beneath their consideration. Their concern, rather, was if the amendments they were debating and the transformation of the Constitution they were enacting went far enough to ensure that the right to vote could be protected from every possible angle of attack.

To their credit, these founders — people like Stevens and Bingham and Charles Sumner — anticipated many of the devious attempts to undermine the right to vote now being championed by judicial activists under the name of “originalism.” It’s not just convenient for those anti-Reconstruction justices to overlook the “original intent” of those amendments. Doing so is their only hope in pursuit of their goal of nullifying them completely.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 13, 2022

10/13 Flashback: We Can Predestine It For Your Wholesale

Next Post

October 15, 2022 10/15 Flashback: Verdicts that demand more evidence

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver?

Select your answer to see how you score.

James John Judas Iscariot Simon Peter