Total run time:
30m
Originalism is a theory of Constitutional interpretation that places primacy on the meaning of the text of the Constitution - yet the question of determining how much can be understood from the Constitution is debated among Originalists. Some Originalists think that the text only provides a narrow or ambiguous meaning, leaving room for significant construction of meaning to fill in the gaps. Other Originalists argue that the text itself supplies more explicit meaning, leaving less room or need for construction. This unit in the No. 86 project explores different views in this debate about the "construction zone."
Do all Originalists agree about the legal meaning of the Constitution?
Professor John McGinnis discusses a couple of the main Originalist proposals about the “construction zone.” Originalists disagree about the amount of meaning or context impl
...
Do all Originalists agree about the legal meaning of the Constitution?
Professor John McGinnis discusses a couple of the main Originalist proposals about the “construction zone.” Originalists disagree about the amount of meaning or context implied by the basic text of the Constitution, and how much context can be used for interpretation. The Constitution can be seen as more or less flexible depending on how much room there is for construction of meaning.
Professor John O. McGinnis is the George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law at Northwestern University School of Law.
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Subscribe to the series’ playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWwcngsYgoUXu97xPQ7LdAJ0Oh7I7w-Dt
Total run time:
30m
Course:
Total videos:
11
Difficulty:
Elective
Thank you for enrolling in the course! You’ll receive email updates every week with our newest video.
