Conceptual v. Normative Defenses of Originalism [No. 86]

How do Originalists defend their position?

Professor Ilan Wurman briefly explains the reasons and uses for conceptual originalism and normative originalism. Professor Wurman makes the case that Originalists need both kinds of defenses to effectively counter non-originalist, living Constitution arguments.

Ilan Wurman is a visiting assistant professor at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, where he teaches administrative law and constitutional law. He is the author of A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism (Cambridge 2017).

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Subscribe to the series’ playlist:

[blueknight]

It’s also that the constitution can only be “updated” either by 3/4 of the states in a convention of states or by legislators..not life appointed judges who advocate for one particular party..the people have allowed this for far too long!

[sciblueanangrymanintheli]

What argument would you need other than you swore an oath to up hold the Constitution. I dont see why that would be dismissed. You swear an oath, you should at least try to keep. I understand that stuff happens and new stuff comes up. So people need to use common sense in those cases.