Originalism, constitutional stability, and the danger of chasing political fashion.
Over the last several days, I’ve found myself going down a rabbit hole studying a constitutional philosophy known as originalism. I’ll admit, it wasn’t something I had spent a great deal of time researching before. Like many Americans, I’d heard the term thrown around in political debates, usually as either praise or criticism depending on which side was speaking. But once I actually sat down and read what originalism is—and, just as importantly, what it is not—I began to appreciate why it has become such an important part of our national conversation.
At its core, originalism is fairly straightforward. It holds that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original public meaning of its words at the time they were adopted. That does not mean America must somehow return to the eighteenth century, nor does it require pretending that modern technology or contemporary problems do not exist. It simply means the meaning of the Constitution should not change because our politics do.
I am fully aware that society changes. Technology evolves. New legal questions arise that the Founders could never have imagined. The internet, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and social media were obviously beyond their comprehension. But I believe there is a meaningful difference between applying an enduring constitutional principle to a new circumstance and redefining the principle itself.
As a black conservative Christian, I often hear people speak about the Constitution as though it should be molded to fit whatever political movement currently enjoys cultural momentum. Whether the issue is on the left or the right, I find that way of thinking unsettling. A Constitution that changes its meaning according to the passions of the moment eventually ceases to function as a Constitution at all. It becomes little more than a mirror reflecting whichever ideology happens to be winning at the time.
The Constitution was written to place limits on government—not simply to organize it. It was designed to create stability in a nation that understood political passions come and go. Elections change. Presidents change. Congress changes. Public opinion changes. The Constitution was intended to be the stable foundation underneath all of it.
If that foundation begins shifting every time society develops a new political preference, then constitutional rights stop being rights and become temporary privileges dependent upon judicial philosophy and cultural trends.
History gives us plenty of reasons to be cautious about allowing rights to fluctuate with popular opinion. Majorities are not always wise. Cultural consensus is not always moral. Public sentiment often defended ideas we now recognize as profound injustices. One generation may celebrate something another generation later condemns.