I will have to look for the Barnett article.  For my money, the best defense and explication of originalism is Keith Whittington's Constitutional Interpretation.

Matt
***************************
Matthew J. Franck
Professor and Chairman
Department of Political Science
Radford University
P.O. Box 6945
Radford, VA  24142-6945
phone 540-831-5854
fax 540-831-6075
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***************************
At 04:28 PM 8/1/2003 -0700, you wrote:
As a non-originalist, I suggest that the only coherent originalism theory is the textually (aka original meaning) theory which is well discussed in Randy E. Barnett, An Originalism for NonOriginalists, 45 Loyola L Rev. 611 (1999).  This version of originalism renders the most perplexing of Prof. Lipkin's questions irrelevant.
Malla Pollack
Visiting, Univ. of Oregon, Law
541-346-1599
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Justin Lipkin
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Scalia's Originalism

       As a non-historian and a non-political scientist, let me asks the following questions: (1) Does originalism presuppose the Framers held one determinate view regarding constitutional meaning? Does it permit the Framers' holding several different views? (2) How does one establish such either view? (3) How do historians (and political scientists) deal with the problem of ascertaining "collective intent," a problem that Dworkin and more recently George Fletcher, as well as many others have emphasized? (2) Do those supporting original intent or original understanding appreciate the enormous commitments to differing philosophies of mind involved in either theory?  (4) How do we ascertain the intent---subjective or objective---of a particular Framer? (5) How do we ascertain the public meaning of a critical political or legal term even in contemporary society let alone in the past? and (6) To what are we referring when we make claims that the original intent or understanding of a constitutional provision is X? (7) What evidentiary techniques are required to substantiate such claims? Apologies if some of these questions overlap.

Bobby Lipkin
Widener University School of Law
Delaware

Reply via email to