That idea that judges should interpret the Constitution by discovering the original intent or meaning of the text ignores the history of this country's founding.
America's deeply divided over how to interpret the Constitution. Originalism, the view that judges should interpret the Constitution by discovering the original intent or the original meaning of the text, has a strong hold on the public.
Yet the opposing view, that judges ought to interpret the Constitution as a living document and read it in light of contemporary values or an evolving tradition, is also well entrenched in American culture.
Not surprisingly, support for originalism is strongest among Tea Party activists, conservatives, and Republicans.
Although the vast majority of legal academics are not originalists, the theory of originalism has never been stronger among law professors.
Indeed, originalism now has adherents not only among conservative but also liberal legal scholars.
There is really only one group in American society that remains largely immune to the lure of originalism: historians.
