Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:37:44.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Originalism and the Law of the Past

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2019

William Baude  and
Stephen E. Sachs Open the ORCID record for Stephen E. Sachs [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Originalism has long been criticized for its “law office history” and other historical sins. But a recent “positive turn” in originalist thought may help make peace between history and law. On this theory, originalism is best understood as a claim about our modern law--which borrows many of its rules, constitutional or otherwise, from the law of the past. Our law happens to be the Founders' law, unless lawfully changed. This theory has three important implications for the role of history in law. First, whether and how past law matters today is a question of current law, not of history. Second, applying that current law may often require deference to historical expertise, but for a more limited inquiry: one that looks specifically at legal doctrines and instruments, interprets those instruments in artificial ways, and makes use of evidentiary principles and default rules when the history is obscure. Third, ordinary legal reasoning already involves the application of old law to new facts, an inquiry that might otherwise seem daunting or anachronistic. Applying yesterday's “no vehicles in the park” ordinance is no less fraught--and no more so--than applying Founding-era legal doctrines.

Type
Invited Article
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , August 2019 , pp. 809 - 820
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors are grateful to Jud Campbell, Michael McConnell, Zachary Price, Richard Re, Amanda Schwoerke, and Lael Weinberger for advice and comments, and to Andrew Lowdon, Stephanie Pearl, and Robert Schenck for excellent research assistance.

References

1. United States v. Old Dominion Boat Club, 630 F.3d 1039, 1041 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

2. Ibid., 1041–42.

3. Ibid., 1042 (alteration in original) (citation omitted).

4. Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder, 469 U.S. 153, 156–62 (1985).

5. Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 U.S. 600, 627–40 (1979) (Powell, J., concurring).

6. Baude, William and Sachs, Stephen E., “Grounding Originalism,” Northwestern Law Review 113 (2019): 1455–91Google Scholar; Baude, William, “Is Originalism Our Law?” Columbia Law Review 115 (2015): 2349–408Google Scholar; and Sachs, Stephen E., “Originalism as a Theory of Legal Change,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 38 (2015): 817–88Google Scholar.

7. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012).

8. Irving, Helen, “Outsourcing the Law: History and the Disciplinary Limits of Constitutional Reasoning,” Fordham Law Review 84 (2015): 957–67Google Scholar, at 960.

9. Ibid., 961, 965.

10. See, for example, United States v. Seale, 577 F.3d 566 (5th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (per curiam).

11. U.S. Nat'l Bank of Oregon v. Independent Insurance Agents of America, 508 U.S. 439 (1993).

12. Harrison, John, “The Lawfulness of the Reconstruction Amendments,” University of Chicago Law Review 68 (2001): 375–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. Baude and Sachs, “Grounding Originalism,” 1457, 1482–83.

14. Easterbrook, Frank H., “Textualism and the Dead Hand,” George Washington Law Review 66 (1998): 1119–26Google Scholar, at 1120.

15. Baude, William, “Originalism as a Constraint on Judges,” University of Chicago Law Review 84 (2017): 2213–29Google Scholar, at 2224–25.

16. Hart, H.L.A., The Concept of Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. Parker, Kunal M., “Writing Legal History Then and Now: A Brief Reflection,” American Journal of Legal History 56 (2016): 168–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 169; Cornell, Saul, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Constitutional Ideas: The Intellectual History Alternative to Originalism,” Fordham Law Review 82 (2013): 721–55Google Scholar; and Gordon, Robert W., “Introduction: J. Willard Hurst and the Common Law Tradition in American Legal Historiography,” Law and Society Review 10 (1975): 9–55Google Scholar.

18. Cornell, “Meaning and Understanding,” 726.

19. Gienapp, Jonathan, The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baude, William and Sachs, Stephen E., “The Law of Interpretation,” Harvard Law Review 130 (2017): 1079–147Google Scholar, at 1118–20; and Powell, H. Jefferson, “The Original Understanding of Original Intent,” Harvard Law Review 98 (1985): 885–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. Compare Baude and Sachs, “The Law of Interpretation,” 1141–42; Cornell, Saul, “Constitutional Meaning and Semantic Instability: Federalists and Anti-Federalists on the Nature of Constitutional Language,” American Journal of Legal History 56 (2016): 21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 26–27; and Powell, “Original Understanding,” 923–24.

21. Baude, William and Stern, James Y., “The Positive Law Model of the Fourth Amendment,” Harvard Law Review 129 (2016): 1821–89Google Scholar, at 1840–41.

22. Rakove, Jack, “Review of Original Intent and the Framers’ Constitution, by Leonard W. Levy,” American Journal of Legal History 34 (1990): 72–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 74; and Rakove, Jack N., “Joe the Ploughman Reads the Constitution, or, The Poverty of Public Meaning Originalism,” San Diego Law Review 48 (2011): 575–600Google Scholar, at 577.

23. Irving, “Outsourcing the Law,” 963.

24. Lawson, Gary and Seidman, Guy, “Originalism as a Legal Enterprise,” Constitutional Commentary 23 (2006): 47–80Google Scholar; and Rakove, “Poverty of Public Meaning Originalism,” 584–85.

25. For example, Baude, William, “Rethinking the Federal Eminent Domain Power,” Yale Law Journal 122 (2013): 1738–825Google Scholar; and Sachs, Stephen E., “Full Faith and Credit in the Early Congress,” Virginia Law Review 95 (2009): 1201–79Google Scholar.

26. Madison, James, “No. 37,” in The Federalist, ed. Cooke, Jacob E. (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961), 231–39Google Scholar, at 236; Nelson, Caleb, “Stare Decisis and Demonstrably Erroneous Precedents,” Virginia Law Review 87 (2001): 1–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Baude, William, “Constitutional Liquidation,” Stanford Law Review 71 (2019): 1–70Google Scholar.

27. Irving, “Outsourcing the Law,” 961.

28. Compare Erman, Sam and Perl-Rosenthal, Nathan, “Historians’ Amicus Briefs: Practice and Prospect,” in The Oxford Handbook of Legal History, ed. Dubber, Markus D. and Tomlins, Christopher (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 1095–114Google Scholar; and Stein, Joshua, “Historians Before the Bench: Friends of the Court, Foes of Originalism,” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 25 (2013): 359–89Google Scholar.

29. Baude and Sachs, “Law of Interpretation,” 1111–12, at 1145–46.

30. Irving, “Outsourcing the Law,” 965.

31. Transcript of Oral Argument, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n, 564 U.S. 786 (2011) (No. 08-1448), 17.

32. Mary Sarah Bilder, “The Constitution Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means,” Boston Globe, April 2, 2017, K1.

33. Lawson, Gary, “On Reading Recipes … and Constitutions,” Georgetown Law Journal 85 (1997): 1823–36Google Scholar.

34. Irving, “Outsourcing the Law,” 964.

35. Hart, Concept of Law, 128–29, 274.

36. Schauer, Frederick, “A Critical Guide to Vehicles in the Park,” New York University Law Review 83 (2008): 1109–34Google Scholar, at 1122.

37. Baude and Sachs, “Law of Interpretation,” 1106–7.

38. 554 U.S. 570 (2008); 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

39. Powell, H. Jefferson, “The Regrettable Clause: United States v. Comstock and the Powers of Congress,” San Diego Law Review 48 (2011): 713–72Google Scholar, at 761.

40. Ibbetson, David, “What Is Legal History a History of?” in Law and History: Current Legal Issues, vol. 6, ed. Lewis, Andrew and Lobban, Michael (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 33–40Google Scholar, at 35.

41. Citizens United v. FEC, 389 (Scalia, J., concurring); ibid., 427 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); and diGiacomantonio, William C., “‘For the Gratification of a Volunteering Society’: Antislavery and Pressure Group Politics in the First Federal Congress,” Journal of the Early Republic 15 (1995): 169–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42. District of Columbia v. Heller, 577–78, 598–600, 603, 627 (opinion of the Court); and ibid., 651 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

43. For example, Cornell, Saul, “Originalism on Trial: The Use and Abuse of History in District of Columbia v. Heller,” Ohio State Law Journal 69 (2008): 625–40Google Scholar, at 631–36 (arguing that the Court mistakenly used the nineteenth-century law of preambles).

44. Hart, Concept of Law, 55.

45. Ibbetson, “What Is Legal History a History of?” 35, 40.

46. Cornell, “Originalism on Trial,” 626–27; and Wood, Gordon S., “Ideology and the Origins of Liberal America,” William and Mary Quarterly 44 (1987): 628–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 632–33.

47. Rakove, “Poverty of Public Meaning Originalism,” 579–80.