Originalist vs. constructionist | TheUnion.com

Originalist vs. constructionist

The recent Op-Ed “Open letter to the Tea Party” (Oct. 17) undoubtedly raised some eyebrows.

I admit to being a member of the “populist movement” and it saddens me that the populist philosophy is, either deliberately or out of ignorance, often misunderstood.

Allow me to explain first that there is a significant difference between the terms “originalist” and “constructionist” as it pertains to our Constitution. I know of very few originalists in the populist movement.

The Constitution, from a constructionist point of view, deserves to be interpreted on the basis of its original intent. That position doesn’t preclude adjusting the Constitution to meet the needs of a changing society; it simply means that the adaptations deserve to be made in a manner consistent with the methods outlined in the Constitution itself. What we object to is the judiciary assuming the role of lord and master over those adjustments.

As you read commentaries written by those who seek to advance the “new society,” please look carefully and make a diligent effort to identify the fallacious arguments that are often co-mingled with historical facts. Whether by design or careless reasoning, deceit has always been a threat to the masses it pretends to protect.

Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

Readers around Grass Valley and Nevada County make The Union’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User