Jonathan Gienapp’s new book Against Constitutional Originalism is unlikely to persuade

Stanford historian Jonathan Gienapp has garnered praise from those eager to undermine originalist enterprise.

He says his new book Against Constitutional Originalism is unlikely to persuade, but it highlights persistent difficulties in constitutional interpretation.

He argues that substantive constitutional principles were not confined to the Constitution ’s text at the time of its framing.

Gienapp suggests that the Framers ’ lack of historical experience with societal change undermines the propriety of taking their commitment to originalism as opposition to today ’s living constitutionalism.

The Founders debated interpretive rules precisely because they understood that such rules would help fix the meaning of the text.

Unlike the Articles of Confederation , the Constitution derives its authority from “ We the People of the United States” .

Gienapp touts the fact that some contemporaries opposed the legalistic approach to constitutional interpretation, but he overlooks a critical point: many of these individuals were opponents of the Constitution .

Members of Congress and judges frequently invoked legal rules and inferences when interpreting the Constitution , authors say.

Authors: Most originalists recognize the potential relevance of political concepts to understanding constitutional provisions.