Nine lawyers in black robes sit in a marble temple in Washington and commune with the dead. They ask James Madison, silent since 1836, how he feels about bump stocks. They ask a Virginia planter to rule on geofence warrants and a Boston merchant to weigh encrypted messaging, and they transcribe the answers with straight faces into the United States Reports. Every other corner of American life has a name for this ritual. When a widow pays for it in a candlelit parlor, we call it a séance and we call the medium a fraud. When five justices perform it in October Term, we call it originalism, and law schools award tenure for defending the candles.
The men being channeled filed a written objection to the channeling. Thomas Jefferson, writing to Samuel Kercheval in 1816, mocked those who “look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.” He pressed harder in the same letter: “We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Barbarous ancestors. His phrase, aimed at his own cohort and offered to us as a warning. The current Supreme Court majority has spent two decades tailoring that boy’s coat ever tighter and calling the fit fidelity.
The Grammar of an Unfinished Country
Open the document to its first sentence and read the four words the séance skips: “a more perfect Union.” A comparative adjective bolted onto an absolute noun. Schoolteachers mark the construction wrong, since perfection admits no degrees, and the drafters bolted it on anyway because they meant the impossibility. The Articles of Confederation had promised a “perpetual Union,” and perpetual collapsed within a decade. Gouverneur Morris, rewriting the Preamble for the Committee of Style in September 1787, reached past perpetual for a comparative, and a comparative is a vector: it names a direction and refuses to name an endpoint. “More perfect” concedes imperfection in the act of founding and assigns the repair to everyone who arrives afterward. Abraham Lincoln read it that way in his First Inaugural, reasoning that a Union formed in order to become more perfect could hardly have been built to dissolve. The phrase is a work order, and a work order presumes the crew keeps changing.
The men in the room said so themselves, on the record, in their own hands. Benjamin Franklin, too frail on September 17 to deliver his closing speech, had James Wilson read it aloud: he confessed there were parts of the Constitution he did not approve, then added that a long life had taught him to expect better information to change his mind on matters he had once thought settled. George Washington wrote his nephew Bushrod that November a sentence every originalist should recite before oral argument: “I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us.” The first President, in ink, declining his own oracle status. Article V says the quiet part in structural form: a charter that builds its own amendment machinery is a signed confession that its authors expected to be overruled, and they gave the overruling a procedure.
The machinery runs on timescales that dwarf a human life, which tells you what kind of organism the document is. James Madison drafted a congressional pay amendment in 1789. It sat unratified for two centuries until Gregory Watson, an undergraduate at the University of Texas, argued in a 1982 term paper that the proposal remained legally alive, received a C for it, and spent the following decade convincing state legislatures out of conviction and spite. The Twenty-Seventh Amendment entered the Constitution in 1992, two hundred three years after Madison inked it, and the university corrected Watson’s grade to an A in 2017. A constitutional provision gestated across four wars, the telegraph, the automobile, and the moon landing. Documents that live in centuries cannot be governed by the deathbed opinions of their first witnesses.
Which Dead Men? The Empty Chairs of 1787
Ask an originalist whose mind, specifically, we are reading, and watch the confidence wobble. Jefferson, the founder most often ventriloquized, spent the summer of 1787 in Paris as minister to France. John Adams was in London. Patrick Henry refused his appointment to the Convention because, he said, he smelt a rat. Rhode Island sent no one at all. Fifty-five delegates drifted through Philadelphia; thirty-nine signed; three men still present on the final day, George Mason, Edmund Randolph, and Elbridge Gerry, withheld their names. The “founders” of originalist incantation were a fractious committee with an empty-chair problem, and the two names Americans know best were an ocean away.
Then comes the secrecy, which detonates the theory at its foundation. The Convention met behind locked doors under a formal secrecy rule, sentries posted, and the official journal stayed sealed for three decades, reaching print only in 1819. The people who ratified the Constitution in 1787 and 1788, the only people whose consent gave the parchment any authority, could read the bare text and the pamphlet war surrounding it, and nothing more. Whatever the framers privately intended was unavailable, by design, to the public whose “original understanding” now supposedly governs us.
Madison guarded his famous Convention notes until his death in 1836, the last of the signers to go, and the notes reached print in 1840. Mary Sarah Bilder’s Madison’s Hand, published by Harvard in 2015, demonstrated through forensic study of the manuscript that he revised them across decades, an old man editing the transcript of his youth, sanding the record he knew posterity would quote. The primary source of original intent is a curated document, corrected in hindsight by its author. Madison also told us, flatly, what he thought of intent-hunting. Writing to the editor Thomas Ritchie in 1821, he directed interpreters to the text itself and, if a key were needed, to the state ratifying conventions where the instrument acquired its authority, and he pointedly excluded the opinions of the body that drafted it. The Father of the Constitution disavowed framer-intent originalism in ink, five decades before anyone thought to build a judicial movement on it.
Legal historians closed the loop long ago. H. Jefferson Powell demonstrated in the Harvard Law Review in 1985 that the founding generation inherited an English interpretive tradition that excluded any recourse to drafters’ private intentions; instruments were read by their words and settled usages, and a lawmaker’s secret purposes carried no authority. The doctrine therefore dies of recursion: the original intent of the founders was that original intent should govern nothing. And yes, this essay quotes founders by the fistful, which strengthens the point rather than betraying it, because their words appear here as evidence of a quarrelsome and self-doubting founding mind, and evidence carries a different weight than command.
The Founders Flunked Their Own Exam
Grant, for the sake of argument, that founders’ meaning could bind us. It still could never be recovered, because the founders themselves failed to recover it while the ink was wet. In February 1791, four years out of Philadelphia, Congress debated a national bank. Madison rose in the House and pronounced the bank unconstitutional, beyond any enumerated power. Alexander Hamilton, who had sat in the room beside him, wrote President Washington a cabinet opinion grounding the bank in implied powers. Jefferson sided with Madison; Washington signed with Hamilton. Two framers, reading text they had drafted together, in the decade they drafted it, reached opposite constitutional conclusions, and the quarrel split the founding generation into the first political parties. If original meaning were a recoverable object, 1791 was the easiest year in human history to recover it, and the recovery failed on the House floor.
Madison then supplied the sequel that embarrasses his channelers. In 1816, President Madison signed the Second Bank of the United States into law, explaining that decades of legislative practice, judicial acquiescence, and public acceptance had settled a question his own 1791 argument had contested. The author of the Constitution treated constitutional meaning as something usage could ripen, which is the living constitutionalism the current Court denounces, practiced by the man the Court claims to channel. Chief Justice John Marshall, a veteran of Virginia’s ratifying convention, put the design principle on paper in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819: “we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding,” an instrument “intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” A ratifier, describing adaptation as the specification.
The early Republic even modeled the honest remedy for a Court reading gone wrong. In 1793 the justices held in Chisholm v. Georgia that a citizen of one state could sue another state in federal court. The country recoiled, and within two years the Eleventh Amendment overruled the decision through Article V. Disagreement traveled through the channel the founders built for it. When the people reject a constitutional meaning, the people may change it, and they did, starting almost immediately.
A Theory That Molts
Modern originalism has a birthday and a birth certificate. Attorney General Edwin Meese announced a “jurisprudence of original intention” to the American Bar Association in July 1985, and Justice William Brennan answered at Georgetown that October with the diagnosis that still fits: pretending to read the framers’ minds across two centuries amounts to “arrogance cloaked as humility.” Scholars then took the theory apart at the seams. Paul Brest had shown in 1980 that a collective intent shared by dozens of drafters and hundreds of ratifiers is a fiction with no referent; Powell showed in 1985 that the founders’ own rules forbade the inquiry. A method, confronted with refutation, concedes or dies. This theory molted. Original intent became “original public meaning.” When historians demonstrated that public meaning was itself contested and plural, the theory sprouted “construction zones” and “liquidation” to absorb the inconvenient cases. When the archives kept embarrassing the briefs, the movement hired software, mining databases of founding-era print, corpus linguistics as a ouija board with a search bar. Each molt preserves the conclusions and swaps the justification, and a doctrine that mutates whenever it loses has identified itself: apologetics wearing the costume of a method, faith with footnotes.
Case Files From the Séance Room
The performance sits in the record, so the fraud never has to stay abstract. District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 asked what the Second Amendment means, and both sides answered with history. Justice Scalia’s majority carved the amendment into a “prefatory” clause and an “operative” clause, demoted the militia language to decoration, and located an individual right to keep handguns in the home. Justice Stevens ran an equally originalist excavation through the record and surfaced a militia-bound right. One archive, two originalists, two opposite histories, one 5-4 vote decided by the preferences originalism was invented to disguise. Linguists later ran “bear arms” through the founding-era corpora originalists themselves champion, including the Brigham Young databases, and the phrase appeared overwhelmingly in military contexts. Consulted with the movement’s own instruments, the ghost disagreed with the ruling issued in his name.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022 escalated the ritual into a rule: gun regulations now survive only with a historical twin from the founding era, or perhaps from 1868, an ambiguity the opinion acknowledged and declined to resolve. Federal district judges became weekend archivists, ruling on muskets, surety statutes, and Reconstruction pistol codes, and issuing contradictory decisions about which century controls. The chaos forced a retreat within two years. In United States v. Rahimi, eight justices upheld the disarming of a domestic abuser despite the absence of a founding-era analogue, while separate concurrences conceded that lower courts could no longer tell what the test required. A test that collapses within twenty-four months of contact with its own trial courts deserves a different name: a mood with citations.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health in 2022 showed where the séance reaches when women’s bodies are on the docket. Justice Alito measured the rights of living American women against “history and tradition” and cited, as a load-bearing authority, Sir Matthew Hale, a seventeenth-century English judge who sentenced women to death for witchcraft at Bury St. Edmunds and authored the doctrine that a husband could never, in law, rape his wife. The Court reached past the ratifiers of 1868, past the framers of 1787, into the 1600s, and pulled a witch-hanging marital-rape theorist out of the ground to govern an American woman’s body in the twenty-first century. No parody could improve on the citation.
Name the ancestor honestly, because the most infamous opinion in the Court’s history performed this ritual first. Chief Justice Taney’s Dred Scott opinion in 1857 grounded itself in a survey of what the founding generation had believed about Black Americans, insisting that fidelity to that era’s views compelled the holding that descendants of the enslaved could never be citizens. Taney practiced history-and-tradition jurisprudence before the phrase existed, and it produced the ruling every first-year law student learns as the nadir. Originalists market their method as a shield against judicial willfulness; the method’s founding masterpiece is Dred Scott.
Then come the cases the doctrine cannot produce and quietly pockets anyway. Brown v. Board of Education sits badly with 1868, because the Congress that proposed the Fourteenth Amendment ran segregated schools in the District of Columbia; Raoul Berger, an originalist of rare candor, conceded the amendment’s framers had no design to abolish school segregation, and the movement has spent decades manufacturing workarounds because no theory that flunks Brown survives in public. Bolling v. Sharpe applied equal protection against the federal government through a Fifth Amendment that contains no equal protection clause, and originalists swallow it whole, since the alternative blesses federal Jim Crow. Loving v. Virginia struck down interracial-marriage bans that blanketed the legal map of 1868. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard declared the Constitution colorblind while the Reconstruction Congress that wrote the relevant amendment funded race-conscious Freedmen’s Bureau programs with its other hand. The doctrine holds when history points rightward and evaporates when history points anywhere else.
The evaporations are the tell. Qualified immunity appears nowhere in the text of the 1871 Civil Rights Act and nowhere in founding-era common law, and the self-described textualists enforce it every term. Trump v. United States in 2024 conjured presidential immunity for official acts out of air the founding generation had tested and rejected: James Wilson assured Pennsylvania’s ratifying convention that the President stands amenable to the law like any private citizen, and Franklin argued for an impeachment power on the ground that history’s alternative remedy for a chief magistrate had been assassination. No clause and no ratifier supports the immunity; a Court that claims to take its orders from 1787 issued a ruling 1787 had voted down. Trump v. Anderson then read Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, written by men who had buried three-quarters of a million war dead to keep insurrectionists out of office, and declined to give its plain command self-executing force against a federal candidate. Originalism turns out to be a taxi that drives to one neighborhood. When the archive rides along, the justices quote it by the yard; when the archive objects, they discover pragmatism, structure, and consequences, which is to say they discover the living Constitution and decline to say its name.
The freshest exhibit is four days old. In Trump v. Barbara, decided this week, the Court struck down the executive order that tried to cancel birthright citizenship, six votes to three, and even the correct result exposes the machinery. To reaffirm what the Fourteenth Amendment has said in plain words since 1868, and what Wong Kim Ark confirmed in 1898, the Chief Justice spent twenty-six pages re-litigating English common law and Reconstruction floor debates against a “domicile” theory the majority dismissed for its “scant evidence.” The provenance seals the indictment: the challenge arrived speaking fluent originalism, a revisionist original-meaning reading of “subject to the jurisdiction” built from the era’s own materials, which means the method manufactured the attack and then billed the country for putting it down. Three justices worked that record with originalism’s own tools and voted to unmake the citizenship of newborns, so the archive armed both sides and the line held on votes rather than on method. Under séance jurisprudence a birthright settled for a hundred and twenty-eight years reopens whenever a litigant hires a more inventive historian, and the citizenship of infants waits on the grading of a graduate seminar.
Monstrosities of a Common Species
History keeps a full shelf of institutions that chose the minds of dead men over the evidence of living eyes, and the shelf reads like a casualty report. Galen of Pergamon dissected pigs and Barbary macaques, never a human being, and his anatomy ruled European medicine for roughly thirteen centuries. Medieval faculties staged dissections with a professor reading Galen aloud from a high chair while a barber cut and a demonstrator pointed, and when the corpse contradicted the book, the corpse lost; the discrepancy was explained away as degeneration in modern bodies. Andreas Vesalius broke the spell in 1543 by cutting where the text forbade and publishing what his eyes found, and anatomy restarted after a millennium of reverent stagnation. Substitute the framers for Galen and you have the Bruen test: when the present contradicts the parchment, rule the present defective.
American founding-era medicine supplies the crueler parable, with a cast originalists will recognize. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration and the most celebrated physician of the founding generation, bled and purged Philadelphia through the yellow fever epidemic of 1793 with a doctrinal confidence no pile of corpses could dent. Six years later the original understanding of medicine met its most famous patient. George Washington woke on December 14, 1799 with a closing throat, and the finest physicians of the founding era treated him strictly by the book they trusted: they bled him four times, draining something near forty percent of his blood, blistered his neck with cantharides, and dosed him with calomel, and he was dead by ten that night. The father of the country was killed, in substantial part, by faithful adherence to founding-era best practice. Any justice who wants the nation governed by the epistemology of 1791 should first agree to be treated by its physicians; we can schedule the leeches for the morning of oral argument.
Other civilizations ran the experiment and paid the toll. Imperial China froze Confucian interpretation into the eight-legged essay, an examination form so ossified that generations of the empire’s finest minds spent whole lifetimes arranging approved phrases from ancient texts in approved orders while the industrial world assembled itself elsewhere; the examination system died in 1905, about two centuries late. Classical Islamic jurisprudence carried the warning in its own vocabulary, taqlid, the imitation of dead masters, set against ijtihad, independent reasoning, and scholars fought for centuries over whether “the gate of ijtihad” had swung shut; the schools that lived as if it had paid the price in stagnation. Soviet ideology hardened into a scholasticism of quotation, disputes settled by dueling citations from Marx and Lenin, the words of dead men deployed to end thought. Each of these systems mistook a starting point for a boundary, and each paid in centuries.
Honesty requires the benign contrast, because preservation itself is innocent. Original-pronunciation Shakespeare delights scholars and harms no one. Museum conservators freeze 1787 behind climate-controlled glass, and the freezing is the service they render. Period orchestras play on gut strings, the concert ends, and everyone walks home under modern medicine and modern law. The difference is jurisdiction. A museum that worships the past curates it; a court that worships the past sentences people with it. Originalism commits a category error at the root, handling a charter of living power under the protocols of relic conservation, and relics make catastrophic operating manuals.
What the Parchment Demands
The document itself instructs its readers against the séance, in ratified words originalism has to un-read. The Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Twenty-one words anticipating rights beyond the founders’ list, ratified by the founding generation itself. Robert Bork, the intellectual patriarch of modern originalism, sat before the Senate in 1987 and compared those words to an inkblot a judge should read past. A doctrine marketed as fidelity to text met text it disliked and declared the text illegible. The maneuver deserves a museum placard of its own.
The drafters chose capacious language on purpose and told us so. Morris admitted afterward that he had selected phrases that carried his own notions without alarming others; ambiguity was an instrument of agreement. “Due process.” “Equal protection.” “Cruel and unusual.” “Unreasonable searches.” Those are standards, deliberately unfinished, and a standard invites each generation to supply its content, which is why the drafters wrote standards rather than a tax code. Language itself drifts beneath the parchment while judges pretend it stands still: Article IV’s guarantee against “domestic Violence” meant insurrection, “regulate” meant to make regular, and Congress received power to raise Armies and maintain a Navy while an Air Force appears nowhere in the text, and no originalist alive grounds the F-35 in 1787 usage; they wave at structure, purpose, and inference, which is living constitutionalism in a powdered wig. The ratifiers voted for majestic generalities. Majestic generalities are what bind us. The generality was the bargain.
The strongest defense of originalism deserves a square answer. Its advocates argue that judges need a leash, that history restrains willfulness better than conscience does, and that a living Constitution licenses nine unelected lawyers to rule by preference. The worry is legitimate; the record refutes the remedy. Heller split two originalists across one archive. Bruen produced two years of doctrinal chaos and a forced retreat. The immunity ruling invented a shield the founding generation had denied. Barbara pulled three dissents out of the record that persuaded six. A judge operating the history-and-tradition machine selects the era, selects the analogue, and selects the level of generality, three dials that reach any destination while history supplies the upholstery. The claim is testable, and convergence is the test: a leash that held would drag judges of every appointment toward common verdicts against their political grain, while the splits track the party of the appointing president with the regularity of a tide chart. A few celebrated crossings exist, a flag-burning case here, a tribal-boundary case there, and their celebrity proves the point, since nobody throws a parade for a leash that holds twice a decade. Candor differs from restraint, and on candor the living approach wins outright: a court reasoning openly about present consequences names its judgments and submits them to democratic argument, while the séance hides judgment behind ventriloquism and markets the hiding as humility. Brennan called that arrogance forty years ago, and forty years of case law have filed his brief.
The retreat to “public meaning” rescues nothing, since even a fixed meaning of a broad standard commands new applications. “Cruel” can hold a stable meaning for three centuries and still condemn cruelties no Philadelphian imagined, the way “unreasonable search” reaches a cell-tower dump without a time machine. Fixing the meaning of a standard never fixes its applications; the framers understood the distinction, which is why they legislated in standards, and the movement’s collapse of that distinction is the whole con.
The Unfinished Pyramid
Jefferson pushed the logic to its endpoint from Paris in 1789, writing Madison that “the earth belongs in usufruct to the living,” that the dead hold neither powers nor rights over it, and running actuarial tables to conclude that a constitution naturally expires after nineteen years. Nobody has to follow him that far, and the document spares us the trip: Article V renews the text, the standards renew their applications, and the courts merely have to stop bolting the doors. What no free people can accept is the inversion now seated on the bench, a tribunal that reads a work order as a headstone and a boy’s coat as a shroud.
The founding generation left a self-portrait for anyone still confused about intent. In 1782, before the Constitution existed, Congress adopted the Great Seal, and its reverse shows a pyramid of thirteen stone courses with the top missing, an eye shining where the capstone should sit, above mottoes announcing a new order of the ages. They engraved the incompleteness into the national emblem, and since 1935 we have printed it on the dollar bill, so every American carries the confession in a pocket: the builders die, and the building continues. The séance court kneels at the base of that pyramid, squints up at the deliberate gap, and rules, five votes to four, that the masons always intended the stones to stop.
Leave a ReplyCancel reply