LETTER: On constitutional originalism
In her May 31 letter, Linda Clocks wrote that “constitutional originalism is inexcusably wrong” because if we were to strictly stand by the Founders’ original intentions, slavery would still be OK and women could not vote. She states further that, because there were no telephones, TV or internet when the Constitution was written, originalism might preclude laws to prevent their misuse.
Ms. Clocks does not understand the Constitution and exaggerates the concept of originalism.
The Founders addressed things in the future that might not have been contemplated in the original Constitution by including Article V, which provided for amendments, a process that has successfully added 27 amendments, including the Bill of Rights, the abolition of slavery and women’s right to vote. Constitutional originalism does not and cannot negate any of these valid amendments.
The Constitution establishes procedures for enacting laws related to the specified roles of the federal government and reserves to the states all of the obligations not expressly given to the federal government. Laws can go further than the Constitution. Laws may add specific rights and privileges that are not provided under the Constitution. Laws cannot amend the Constitution and cannot be in conflict with the Constitution.
Foes of constitutional originalism would like to disregard or expand the Constitution without following the rules for amending it. Or they would like to read any arbitrary concept or policy or right into the language of the Constitution, ignoring the law-making process.
The Constitution is alive and well. It is just intentionally more stubborn to change than the whims of lawmakers and activists, thankfully.