constitution, constitutional law, originalism, history
My essay was intended as a critique of originalism from the perspective of intellectual history. I pointed out that originalism lacked a rigorous empirical method for analyzing what texts meant in the past. I suppose in some sense it is flattering that Solum has devoted much of his recent article to an attack on my earlier essay. Of course, flattery aside, it would have been more useful if Solum had stated my thesis correctly. For purposes of clarity, I have juxtaposed Solum’s description of my argument with what my essay actually said. Readers will be able to judge for themselves if Solum correctly captured the original meaning of my words.
Saul Cornell, Originalism As Thin Description: An Interdisciplinary Critique, 84 Fordham L. Rev. Res Gestae 1 (2015), http://fordhamlawreview.org/assets/res-gestae/volume/84/Cornell.pdf.