Originalism
Constitutional interpretation doctrine / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Original meaning?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Originalism is a method of constitutional and statutory interpretation. Most Originalists assert that legal text should be interpreted based on the original understanding at the time of adoption, while some also incorporate original intent. Originalists object to the idea of Judicial activism and other significant legal evolution being driven by judges misusing (to them) the common law framework. Instead, Originalists argue for democratic modifications of laws through the Legislature or through Constitutional amendment.[1]
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 term was coined in 1980 and the concept became popular in U.S. conservative legal circles by the 1990s. 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.[2] David Fontana argues in the Texas Law Review that originalism has more adherents in countries that underwent revolutions, especially those in Latin America and Africa.[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" can refer to original intent or original meaning. 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.[6]