Originalism and Its Discontents
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Spring !"!# Originalism and Its Discontents !"#$%#& #. !'(%! Duke University Course !"#.$% O&ce hours: ! !":#"–!$:$" " !:#"–#:#" https://bit.ly/3hGY50A [email protected] Originalism is a major school of constitutional interpretation and an im- portant !eld of study. Legal discussions and public debates regularly feature originalist arguments or criticisms of originalism. To engage these argu- ments, lawyers and citizens need to weigh the merits of a diverse set of originalist theories. This course is designed to acquaint you with originalist and nonoriginal- ist arguments; to enable you to assess their strengths; and to give you an opportunity to sharpen your own views on the topic. Among other things, it examines a variety of theories (original intentions, original meanings, original methods, original law, and so on), emphases (the “old” originalism vs. the “new”), and forms of argument (conceptual, normative, positive). !"#$% This course meets on Tuesdays. Due to the ongoing pandemic, all sessions will be taught online; the Zoom link is available on the class website, under 2021.01.06.1147 “Resources.” Each session starts promptly at !":#" a.m. Please have the as- signed readings with you, and complete the !rst readings before the !rst class. During the !rst week, our class (like all Tuesday classes) will be held on Thursday, Jan. $!. The %rst response paper is due from all students by & a.m. on the morning of the !rst class session. &"#$'(")% Reading assignments are listed at the end of this syllabus. This course has a coursepack, but no textbook. Electronic copies of the readings are also posted online. The readings are rather extensive, averaging roughly ""# law review pages per class. I’ve included approximate page counts for each week to help you plan your workload. A few readings are marked “(skim)”; you really only need to skim these. Optional readings are listed at the end of the syllabus. These are truly optional; they’re included only for further enrichment in your copious free time. (Preferably in a good armchair, a sni$er of brandy and your loyal spaniel at your side.) On the other hand, if you do read most of the pieces on this list, you’ll have a pretty terri!c education in originalism. You can !nd discussions of current developments in originalism on the Originalism Blog, http://originalismblog.typepad.com/. New papers relat- ing to originalism are regularly featured on Lawrence Solum’s Legal Theory Blog, http://lsolum.typepad.com/. '$%*+,%$ *"*$'% As mentioned above, each student is to submit a response paper, uploaded the “Forum” section of the website, by % a.m. on the morning of the !rst class. This paper should address the !rst set of readings and describe your general opinion of originalism. (Any position—including complete confu- sion—is perfectly !ne!) Your response papers should be '(" to !""" words long, which is roughly three to four pages. Shorter papers will be returned for resubmission; longer papers will be read only in part. To standardize length and appearance, ! !"#$%& '(') please use the template available online (under “Resources”), !lling the appropriate information into the header. Response papers shouldn’t try to summarize the assigned readings, which everyone will already have read. Rather, take and defend a position on at least one of the issues discussed. Please write your papers in as straightforward a way as possible: citations, Bluebooking, footnotes, and the like are strictly prohibited.1 A$er the !rst paper, there are two options for the course. The standard option is to write a response paper for each individual class session. Each paper a$er the !rst is due by !!:(& p.m. on the Sunday night before a class. Your papers will be available for your classmates to read online and will serve as a basis for that week’s discussion (hence the early deadlines). One additional response paper discussing the course materials as a whole—or any other originalism-related subject of interest to you—is due by ):#" p.m. on Friday, May ', the last day of the exam period. Each student taking this option has two free “passes” to skip the weekly response papers. To use a pass, just email me before your paper would be due; no further explanation is necessary. Otherwise, half credit is available for unexcused late papers uploaded within a day of the deadline, and one- quarter credit is available for unexcused even-later papers submitted before the end of the exam period. (If you have any technical problems with sub- mission, or any other extraordinary circumstances, just email me.) The alternative option for the course is to pursue an independent re- search project related to originalism. First and !nal dra$s (~&# pp.) should be submitted in compliance with Duke’s upper-level writing requirement. This option is only available with permission; you must also !le the proper forms with the Registrar prior to the close of the Drop/Add period. -)"%% *"'#(-(*"#(+, Unless you’ve requested a “pass” for that week, each student is expected to participate in the discussions, and class participation will be part of your grade. At times, I may choose to cold-call. For emergencies or other special circumstances, just contact me. ! Seriously, no footnotes. *#$&$%+,$!- +%. $/! .$!0*%/1%/! " +..(-$ /+0'% This semester, my o'ce hours are on Mondays, !:#"–#:#" p.m. A sign-up sheet with (#-minute blocks is linked from the website. If no one has signed up for a particular slot, feel free to add your name. If you’d like to arrange an appointment at another time, just email me. You should also feel free to sign up in groups, invite other students to join you during your block, and so on. Please don’t worry about a question sounding silly. If it’s troubling you enough for you to send an email or to sign up for o'ce hours, it’s worth asking and getting cleared up! 1'"!(,1 Grades for the course will be based on your written work and class partici- pation. I will follow the Law School’s standard grading rules for courses of this size. # !"#$%& '(') Originalism and Its Discontents Syllabus ............................................................................................................................ ) (,#'+!0-#(+, ! Jan. $! (!"): The “Dead Hand of the Past” (94 pp.) ).) Constitution of the United States (skim) ................................................ * ).+ Griswold v. Connecticut, &," U.S. -.% ("%/0) ...................................... )1 ).2 Robert H. Bork, Neutral Principles and Some First Amend- ment Problems, -. Ind. L.J. ", "–(# ("%.") ........................................... +* ).3 Magna Carta ("("0) (skim) ........................................................................ 3* ).* William J. Brennan, Jr., The Constitution of the United States: Contemporary Rati!cation, -& Guild Prac. " ("%,/) ........................ 31 ).4 Paul Brest, The Misconceived Quest for the Original Under- standing, /# B.U. L. Rev. (#-, ((-–&, ("%,#) ..................................... 4* ).5 David A. Strauss, Common Law Constitutional Interpreta- tion, /& U. Chi. L. Rev. ,.., ,..–,,#, ,,%–%#, %#&–#/ ("%%/) ..... 6) ).6 Frank H. Easterbrook, Textualism and the Dead Hand, // Geo. Wash. L. Rev. """% ("%%,) ............................................................... 1) $ Jan. $* (!): Change over time (102 pp.) +.) Paul Brest, The Misconceived Quest for the Original Under- standing, /# B.U. L. Rev. (#-, (#-–(- ("%,#) .................................... 11 +.+ Ronald Dworkin, Comment, in Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation ""0, ""0–(( ("%%.) .......................................................... )+) i +.2 Keith E. Whittington, The New Originalism, ( Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 0%% ((##-) ............................................................................. )2) +.3 Christopher R. Green, Originalism and the Sense-Reference Distinction, 0# St. Louis U. L. Rev. 000, 000–/., 0.-–./, 0.%– %#, 0%-–%/, /"-–"0 ((##/) .................................................................... )35 +.* John F. Stinneford, The Original Meaning of “Unusual”: The Eighth Amendment as a Bar to Cruel Innovation, "#( Nw. U. L. Rev. ".&%, ".&%–-. ((##,) ................................................................. )6) +.4 Caleb Nelson, Originalism and Interpretive Conventions, .# U. Chi. L. Rev. 0"%, 0&%–-. ((##&) ...................................................... )1) -+,-$*#0") "'10&$,#% # Feb. $ (!): Original meaning, original intent (96 pp.) 2.) Gary Lawson, On Reading Recipes . and Constitutions, ,0 Geo. L.J. ",(& ("%%.) ................................................................................ +7) 2.+ Lawrence B. Solum, We Are All Originalists Now, in Robert W. Bennett & Lawrence B. Solum, Constitutional Original- ism: A Debate ", "&–"/ ((#"") ................................................................ +)* 2.2 Je8rey Goldsworthy, The Case for Originalism, in The Chal- lenge of Originalism -(, -(–--, -/–0" (Grant Huscro$ & Bradley W. Miller eds., (#"") ................................................................ ++) 2.3 Larry Alexander & Saikrishna Prakash, “Is That English You’re Speaking?” Why Intention Free Interpretation is an Im- possibility, -" San Diego L. Rev. %/. ((##-) .................................... +2) 2.* Unicorn News Article ............................................................................ +4) 2.4 Larry Alexander, Telepathic Law, (. Const. Comment. "&%, "&%–-0 ((#"#) ............................................................................................ +42 ii