A Textualist Argument for a Living Constitution

Abstract

I think the basic intuition behind textualism correct – that the meaning of a law is fixed by referencing the meaning of its words according to the meaning common to the law’s ratifiers. However, even if true, it does not follow that interpretation of a law goes through the original ratifiers. Rather, a citizenry continually ratifies the laws to which it subjects itself, and as the meanings of those words change over time, so will those laws. Concerning, say, the U.S. Constitution, though the text may be very nearly the same now as in the 18th century, a different constitution is in effect.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Analytics

Added to PP
n/a

Downloads
345 (#74,147)

6 months
170 (#20,800)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

A.j. Kreider
Miami-Dade Community College

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references