Toward that end, this Foreword addresses three matters. First, it considers why the use of history in constitutional interpretation is inescapable. Next, it suggests that the Essays in this forum do not go far enough in debunking the idea of “public meaning” originalism as a serious alternative to previous approaches. Finally, the balance of this Foreword reviews the also perhaps inescapable misuses of history that constitutional interpretation invites and considers the type of misuse that public meaning originalism represents.
Martin S. Flaherty,
Historians and the New Originalism: Contextualism, Historicism, and Constitutional Meaning,
84 Fordham L. Rev. 905
Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol84/iss3/1