Using fictive readers in place of actual historical ones effectively
turns constitutional interpretation into an act of historical
ventriloquism. The fictive readers imagined by new originalists
somehow always seem to read the Constitution in exactly the same way
that a modern right-wing law professor would read the document--a
strange coincidence indeed! Even more remarkable is the claim made by
some new originalists that we should not give any special weight to
what people at the time actually said because, unlike new
originalists, Madison, Jay, Hamilton, or any other actual person from
that period would have had political motives. In their constitutional
fantasy world, historical evidence cannot be used to impeach
originalist claims because it would involve claims about actual
practices by historical actors who were often blinded by their biases.
By contrast, new originalists believe they have transcended their own
political interests and created a methodology that reveals the
objective meaning of the Constitution. Having cast the vast majority
of Americans as idiots, and discounted the views of elites for their
political biases, one might wonder what is left to the concept of
original meaning. The answer is new originalist meaning ultimately has
nothing to do with history: it is a modern ideology dressed up in
historical clothing.
-- Saul Cornell, "New Originalism: A Constitutional Scam,"
Dissent Magazine, May 3, 2011
http://dissentmagazine.org/online.php?id=478
There is something deeply ironic about new originalism that its
advocates have missed because they lack an understanding of
Founding-era history. Focusing on the public meaning of the
Constitution, the chief insight of new originalism, is really not new
at all. Such an approach was championed by the Anti-Federalist
opponents of the Constitution more than two hundred years ago.
Following new originalist methodology would not lead to a restoration
of the original meaning of the Constitution, but it would give us an
Anti-Federalist Constitution that never existed. This is an odd
result, given that the Constitution was largely written by Federalists
and ratified by state conventions dominated by Federalist majorities,
not Anti-Federalist minorities.
-- Saul Cornell, "New Originalism: A Constitutional Scam,"
Dissent Magazine, May 3, 2011
http://dissentmagazine.org/online.php?id=478