Originalism

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (November 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Originalism is a legal theory that bases constitutional, judicial, and statutory interpretation of text on the original understanding at the time of its adoption. Proponents of the theory object to judicial activism and other interpretations related to a living constitution framework. Instead, originalists argue for democratic modifications of laws through the legislature or through constitutional amendment.^[1]

Contemporary originalism emerged during the 1980s and greatly influenced American legal culture, practice, and academia.^[2] Originalism nevertheless remains particularly unpopular in many democracies, with the ideology only gaining traction in the West in the United States and, to a lesser extent, Australia.^[3] Critics of originalism often turn to the competing concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that a constitution should evolve and be interpreted based on the context of current times.^[4][5]

Originalism consists of a family of different theories of constitutional interpretation and can refer to original intent or original meaning.^[6] The divisions between the theories relate to what exactly that identifiable original intent or original meaning is: the intentions of the authors or the ratifiers, the original meaning of the text, a combination of the two, or the original meaning of the text but not its expected application. Originalism should not be confused with strict constructionism.^[7]