Originalism and the Constitution

Fundamental to the concept of "originalism" on the Supreme Court of the United States (hereinafter, SCOTUS) is the principle that the Constitution is a static document. By static, the proponents of originalism would have us believe that all SCOTUS decisions must be decided in strict conformance with the words of the Constitution. However, originalists on SCOTUS and elsewhere would have us additionally believe that strict conformance to the wording of Constitution is not enough. They espouse the theory that the words must be read as the original framers of the Constitution would have read them.

The two main champions for originalism on SCOTUS are Antonin Scalia, SJ., and Clarence Thomas, SJ. Of the two, Justice Scalia is considered the main theorist on the concept of originalism.

The framers of the Constitution were for the most part gentlemen farmers, the leader of that writing group was Thomas Jefferson, a plantation owner from Virginia. As far as I know neither Scalia nor Thomas are gentlemen farmers from the 18th century.

In the framers' day, other than the printing press which they used to their great advantage, communication was terribly limited to handwritten letters and oral communication. If you wanted to find out what was going on, you had to get out of your house and go to the town square to hear an oration by some person or read the pamphlets tacked on the village billboard. There was no internet, television, radio, telephone, or even a telegraph available for you to get the news. Why? Because they hadn't been invented yet.

So how does one interpret the wisdom of these plantation owners in order to glean their innermost thoughts and intentions? It is nearly impossible to have a conversation with any of these people as all of them are - well, dead.

Yes, dead as in deceased, expired, exsanguinated, bereft of life, defunct, departed, and kaput.

There is no way that you can simply call one of them up and ask just what they meant when they said things such as, "We, the People." What people? Only the people who were there at the time the Constitution was written? If that is the case, then it is absurd, because all those "People" are - well, dead.

Well, if you can't speak to the framers of the Constitution, then you have to resort to reading their written word, I suppose, as most of the framers of the Constitutions were prolific letter writers. But herein lies the rub. The act of reading the words of someone who is not there to defend their written word, requires (Oh, No!) "interpretation." But that is not originalism as I understand it. SCOTUS decisions must be decided strictly in adherence with the original intent of the framers, period. Full Stop.

What's a mere mortal like an associate justice of SCOTUS to do? But wait there is a solution. (Bright idea!).

Let's channel Thomas Jefferson, after all he was a forward thinking man witness his vision for the University of Virginia, his many inventions and thirst for knowledge. I'm sure he is lurking around somewhere. After all, at the University of Virginia, they refer to him as though he is still alive and had to run down to the apothecary for a moment to get some salts and will be right back.

So if an associate justice of SCOTUS could channel old TJ then he could have those darn conversations and be done with this nonsense that reading old Tom's writings is merely another form of interpretation.

So the question of the day is: Has Antonin Scalia, SJ, successfully channeled Thomas Jefferson?