Originalism

Originalism holds that the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed at the time it was adopted, and that judges should apply that meaning rather than update it to fit later values. Most originalists today look to original public meaning: how an ordinary, informed reader at the time of ratification would have understood the text. An older version focused on the original intent of the framers.

In practice, originalist judges consult dictionaries, legal treatises, debates, and practice from the founding era (or from 1868 for the Fourteenth Amendment). The approach is closely tied to textualism and has shaped recent Supreme Court decisions on guns, religion and abortion, including the history and tradition test used in Second Amendment cases.

Supporters say originalism keeps judges from imposing their own policy views and leaves change to the amendment process and elected legislatures. Critics, often defenders of living constitutionalism, argue that historical evidence is frequently ambiguous, that judges can choose history selectively, and that a fixed meaning cannot handle problems the founders never imagined. Originalists also debate among themselves how much weight to give precedent under stare decisis.