The Normativity of Linguistic Originalism: A Speech Act Analysis

Law and Philosophy 34 (4):397-431 (2015)
Authors
John Danaher
University College, Galway
Abstract
The debate over the merits of originalism has advanced considerably in recent years, both in terms of its intellectual sophistication and its practical significance. In the process, some prominent originalists—Lawrence Solum and Jeffrey Goldsworthy being the two discussed here—have been at pains to separate out the linguistic and normative components of the theory. For these authors, while it is true that judges and other legal decision-makers ought to be originalists, it is also true that the communicated content of the constitution is its original meaning. That is to say: the meaning is what it is, not what it should be. Accordingly, there is no sense in which the communicated content of the constitution is determined by reference to moral desiderata; linguistic desiderata do all the work. In this article, I beg to differ. In advancing their arguments for linguistic originalism, both authors rely upon the notion of successful communications conditions. In doing so they implicitly open up the door for moral desiderata to play a role in determining the original communicated content. This undercuts their claim and changes considerably the dialectical role of linguistic originalism in the debate over constitutional interpretation
Keywords Originalism  Linguistic Philosophy  Philosophy of Language  Interpretation  Constitutional Law  Philosophy of Law  Semantics  Pragmatics  Speech Acts
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10982-015-9227-z
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Constitutional Interpretation: Originalism.Jeffrey Goldsworthy - 2009 - Philosophy Compass 4 (4):682-702.
Reading the Constitution: An Entanglement and Still Arguable Question.Cecilia Tohaneanu - 2010 - Romanian Review of Political Sciences and International Relations (1).
The Truth About Originalism. Kaufman - 2014 - The Pluralist 9 (1):39.
The Case for Originalism.Jeffrey Goldsworthy - 2011 - In Grant Huscroft & Bradley W. Miller (eds.), The Challenge of Originalism: Essays in Constitutional Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Originalism's Constitution.Grégoire C. N. Webber - 2011 - In Grant Huscroft & Bradley W. Miller (eds.), The Challenge of Originalism: Essays in Constitutional Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Constitutions, Originalism, and Meaning.Brian H. Bix - 2011 - In Grant Huscroft & Bradley W. Miller (eds.), The Challenge of Originalism: Essays in Constitutional Theory. Cambridge University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-12-20

Total downloads
324 ( #12,765 of 2,286,242 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
66 ( #5,272 of 2,286,242 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature