Originalism and Its Discontents

Spring !"!#

!"#$%#& #. !'(%! 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 arguments, 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 assigned 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 participation. 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 2.5 Larry Alexander, Originalism, the Why and the What, ,( Fordham L. Rev. 0&% ((#"&) ...... +5) 2.6 Caleb Nelson, A Response to Professor Manning, %" Va. L. Rev. -0" ((##0) ...... +55

) Feb. & (!): Original methods (116 pp.) 3.) John O. McGinnis & Michael B. Rappaport, Original Meth- ods Originalism: A New Theory of Interpretation and the Case Against Construction, "#& Nw. U. L. Rev. .0", .0"–.( ((##%) ...... +15 3.+ H. Je8erson Powell, The Original Understanding of Original Intent, %, Harv. L. Rev. ,,0, ,,0–,%#, ,%-–%"& ("%,-) ...... 2)1 3.2 Caleb Nelson, Originalism and Interpretive Conventions, .# U. Chi. L. Rev. 0"%, 0"%–&%, 0-.–0& ((##&) ...... 23* 3.3 Farah Peterson, Expounding the Constitution, )27 Yale L.J. +, +–2, )3–2) (+7+7) ...... 252 3.* Samuel L. Bray, The Mischief Rule, )71 Geo. L. J. (forthcoming +7+)) (excerpt) ...... 212

( Feb. !* (!): Original law (114 pp.) *.) Stephen E. Sachs, Originalism Without Text, "(. Yale L.J. "0/ ((#".) ...... 3)2 *.+ Stephen E. Sachs, Originalism as a Theory of Legal Change, &, Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y ,"., ,".–((, ,&,–-0, ,.-–,, ((#"0) .... 3+5 *.2 William Baude & Stephen E. Sachs, The Law of Interpreta- tion, "&# Harv. L. Rev. "#.% ((#".) ...... 3*5

* Feb. $# (!): Criticism and construction (124 pp.) 4.) Andrew B. Coan, The Irrelevance of Writtenness in Constitu- tional Interpretation, "0, U. Pa. L. Rev. "#(0, "#(0–&", "#-.– .# ((#"#) ...... *+5

iii 4.+ Richard H. Fallon Jr., The Meaning of Legal “Meaning” and Its Implications for Theories of Legal Interpretation, ,( U. Chi. L. Rev. "(&0, "(&0–-&, "(%.–"&#, ((#"0) ...... **1 ".# Cass R. Sunstein, There Is Nothing that Interpretation Just Is, &# Const. Comment. "%& ((#"0) ...... *6) 4.3 Richard Ekins, Objects of Interpretation, &( Const. Com- ment. " ((#".) ...... 47) 4.* Cass R. Sunstein, Formalism in Constitutional Theory, &" Const. Comment. (. ((#".) ...... 4+5 4.4 Randy E. Barnett & Evan Bernick, The Letter and the Spirit: A Uni!ed Theory of Originalism, "#. Geo. L.J. " ((#",) ...... 42)

,+'&"#(2$ "'10&$,#%

' Mar. $ (!): Popular sovereignty and constraint (114 pp.) 5.) William H. Rehnquist, Observation, The Notion of a Living Constitution, 0- Tex. L. Rev. /%& ("%./) ...... 4*) 5.+ Antonin Scalia, Originalism: The Lesser Evil, 0. U. Cin. L. Rev. ,-% ("%,%) ...... 44* 5.2 Saikrishna B. Prakash, The Misunderstood Relationship Be- tween Originalism and Popular Sovereignty, &" Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y -,0 ((##,) ...... 462 5.3 Thomas B. Colby, The Sacri!ce of the New Originalism, %% Geo. L.J. ."&, ."&–"/, .--–00, ./#–/- ((#"") ...... 41) 5.* David A. Strauss, Common Law Constitutional Interpreta- tion, /& U. Chi. L. Rev. ,.., %(0–&- ("%%/) ...... 5)2 5.4 Mitchell N. Berman, Originalism is Bunk, ,- N.Y.U. L. Rev. ", "–(, /%–.. ((##%) ...... 5+* 5.5 Steven D. Smith et al., The New and Old Originalism: A Dis- cussion (San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. "0-".,, Feb. %, (#"0) ...... 52*

iv + Mar. & (!): Prospects and promises (98 pp.) 6.) John O. McGinnis & Michael B. Rappaport, Originalism and the Good Constitution, %, Geo. L.J. "/%&, "/%0–".#0, ".-"–-. ((#"#) ...... 54* 6.+ Richard A. Posner, Bork and Beethoven, -( Stan. L. Rev. "&/0 ("%%#) ...... 562 6.2 Mitchell N. Berman, Originalism is Bunk, ,- N.Y.U. L. Rev. ", ..–%/ ((##%) ...... 67) 6.3 David A. Strauss, Common Law Constitutional Interpreta- tion, /& U. Chi. L. Rev. ,.., ,%#–%#&, %#/–"/ ("%%/) ...... 6+2 6.* Evan D. Bernick & Christopher R. Green, What is the Object of the Constitutional Oath? 2–5, +7–+5 (Sep. ), +7+7) ...... ,-%

,+'&"#(2$ "'10&$,#%

& Mar. !* (!): Legal disagreement (134 pp.) 1.) Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Constitutional Precedent Viewed Through the Lens of Hartian Positivist Jurisprudence, ,/ N.C. L. Rev. ""#., ""#.–0# ((##,) ...... 642 1.+ David A. Strauss, Common Law Constitutional Interpreta- tion, /& U. Chi. L. Rev. ,.., ,,#–,,, %"/–(-, %&-–&0 ("%%/) ...... 175 1.2 Matthew D. Adler, Interpretive Contestation and Legal Cor- rectness, 0& Wm. & Mary L. Rev. """0 ((#"() ...... 1+1 1.3 Stephen E. Sachs, The “Constitution in Exile” as a Problem for Legal Theory, ,% Notre Dame L. Rev. ((0& ((#"-) ...... 1*)

!" Mar. $# (!): The “positive turn” (106 pp.) )7.) Stephen E. Sachs, Originalism as a Theory of Legal Change, &, Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y ,"., ,((–&,, ,-/–.- ((#"0) ...... 115 )7.+ William Baude, Is Originalism Our Law?, ""0 Colum. L. Rev. (&-%, (&0"–0&, (&.#–,/ ((#"0) ...... )73*

v )7.2 William Baude & Stephen E. Sachs, Grounding Originalism, ""& Nw. U. L. Rev. "-00 ((#"%) ...... )74*

Mar. #" (!): No class

.0'#/$' !$3"#$%

!! Apr. * (!): Originalism and precedent (98 pp.) )).) H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law "(-–-. (Penelope A. Bulloch & Joseph Raz eds., &d ed. (#"() ...... ))72 )).+ Gary Lawson, The Constitutional Case Against Precedent, ". Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y (& ("%%-) ...... ))+1 )).2 John Harrison, The Power of Congress over the Rules of Prec- edent, 0# Duke L.J. 0#&, 0#&–&" ((###) ...... ))3) )).3 Caleb Nelson, Stare Decisis and Demonstrably Erroneous Precedents, ,. Va. L. Rev. ", "–(" ((##") ...... ))5) )).* William Baude, The Judgment Power, %/ Geo. L.J. ",#., ",#.– "- ((##,) ...... ))12

!$ Apr. !# (!): Originalism and history (112 pp.) )+.) Helen Irving, Outsourcing the Law: History and the Discipli- nary Limits of Constitutional Reasoning, ,- Fordham L. Rev. %0. ((#"0) ...... )+7) )+.+ Jack N. Rakove, Joe the Ploughman Reads the Constitution, or, The Poverty of Public Meaning Originalism, -, San Diego L. Rev. 0.0, 0.0–,, ((#"") ...... )+)2 )+.2 Gary Lawson & Guy Seidman, Originalism as a Legal Enter- prise, (& Const. Comment. -., -.–.# ((##/) ...... )++5 )+.3 Saul Cornell, Meaning and Understanding in the History of Constitutional Ideas, ,( Fordham L. Rev. .(", .("–-#, .0-–00 ((#"&) ...... )+*)

vi )+.* Jack M. Balkin, The Construction of Original Public Meaning, &" Const. Comment. ." ((#"/) ...... )+52 )+.4 William Baude & Stephen E. Sachs, Originalism and the Law of the Past, &. Law & Hist. Rev. ,#% ((#"%) ...... )27)

!# Apr. $" (!): Originalism and politics (116 pp.) )2.) Robert Post & Reva Siegel, Originalism as a Political Prac- tice: The Right’s Living Constitution, 5* Fordham L. Rev. *3*, *3*–31, **3–4), *41–53 (+774) (+774) ...... )2)2 )2.+ Jamal Greene, Originalism’s Race Problem, 66 Denver U. L. Rev. *)5 (+7))) ...... )222 )2.2 Christina Mulligan, Diverse Originalism, +) U. Pa. J. Const. L. 251 (+7)1) ...... )221 )2.3 Jack Balkin, Abortion and Original Meaning, +3 Const. Com- ment. +1), +1)–2)) (+775) ...... )211 )2.* Adrian Vermeule, Beyond Originalism, Atlantic, Mar. 2), +7+7 ...... )3+)

May ' (#): Final response paper due by ):#" p.m.

vii Optional readings:

! Cases ).) Marbury v. Madison, 0 U.S. (" Cranch) "&. (",#&). ).+ Home Building & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, (%# U.S. &%, ("%&-). ).2 Cooper v. Aaron, &0, U.S. " ("%0,). ).3 Reynolds v. Sims, &.. U.S. 0&& ("%/-). ).* Roe v. Wade, -"# U.S. ""& ("%.&). ).4 Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 0#0 U.S. ,&& ("%%(). ).5 District of Columbia v. Heller, 00- U.S. 0.# ((##,). ).6 McDonald v. City of Chicago, 0/" U.S. .-( ((#"#). ).1 NLRB v. Noel Canning, "&- S. Ct. (00# ((#"-).

$ Books +.) Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography ((##0). +.+ Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights: Creation and Recon- struction "%%,). +.2 Akhil Reed Amar, The Constitution and Criminal Proce- dure: First Principles ("%%,). +.3 Jack Balkin, Living Originalism ((#""). +.* Randy E. Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Pre- sumption of Liberty (rev. ed. (#"&). +.4 Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary ("%..). +.5 Philip Bobbitt, Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitu- tion ("%,(). +.6 Stephen Breyer, Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Demo- cratic Constitution ((##0). +.1 Josh Chafetz, Congress’s Constitution: Legislative Authority and the Separation of Powers ((#".).

viii +.)7 Josh Chafetz, Democracy’s Privileged Few: Legislative Priv- ilege and Democratic Norms in the British and American Constitutions ((##.). +.)) The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation (Grant Huscro$ & Bradley W. Miller eds., (#""). +.)+ David P. Currie, The Constitution in Congress: The Feder- alist Period, ".,%–",#" ("%%.). +.)2 David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years, ".,%–",,, ("%,0). +.)3 Richard Ekins, The Nature of Legislative Intent ((#"(). +.)* John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review ("%,#). +.)4 "–0 The Founders’ Constitution (Philip B. Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds., "%,.). +.)5 Jonathan Gienapp, The Second Creation: Fixing the Ameri- can Constitution in the Founding Era ((#",). +.)6 Christopher R. Green, Equal Citizenship, Civil Rights, and the Constitution: The Original Sense of the Privileges or Im- munities Clause ((#"0). +.)1 Philip Hamburger, Law and Judicial Duty ((##,). +.+7 Philip Hamburger, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? ((#"-). +.+) H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law (&d ed. (#"(). +.++ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (David F. Forte & Matthew Spalding eds., (d ed (#"-). +.+2 Michael J. Klarman, The Framers’ Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution ((#"/). +.+3 Randy J. Kozel, Settled Versus Right: A Theory of Precedent ((#".). +.+* Gary Lawson et al., The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause ((#"#).

ix +.+4 Gary Lawson & Guy Seidman, The Constitution of Empire: Territorial Expansion & American Legal History ((##-). +.+5 Goodwin Liu, Pamela S. Karlan & Christopher H. Schroeder, Keeping Faith with the Constitution ((##%). +.+6 Pauline Maier, Rati!cation: The People Debate the Consti- tution, ".,.–".,, ((#"#). +.+1 Michael W. McConnell, The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution ((#(#). +.27 John O. McGinnis & Michael B. Rappaport, Originalism and the Good Constitution ((#"&). +.2) Michael D. Ramsey, The Constitution’s Text in Foreign Af- fairs ((##.). +.2+ The Rule of Recognition and the U.S. Constitution (Matthew D. Adler & Kenneth Einar Himma eds., (##%). +.22 Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law ("%%.). +.23 Eric J. Segall, Originalism as Faith ((#",). +.2* Lee J. Strang, Originalism’s Promise: A Natural Law Account of the American Constitution ((#"%). +.24 David A. Strauss, The Living Constitution ((#"#). +.25 Adrian Vermeule, Judging Under Uncertainty: An Institu- tional Theory of Legal Interpretation ((##/). +.26 Ilan Wurman, A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism ((#".).

# Journal articles 2.) Larry Alexander & Saikrishna Prakash, Mother May I? Im- posing Mandatory Prospective Rules of Statutory Interpreta- tion, (# Const. Comment. %. ((##&). 2.+ Mikołaj Barczentewicz, The Illuminati Problem and Rules of Recognition, &, Oxford J. Legal Stud. 0## ((#",).

x 2.2 Mikołaj Barczentewicz, The Limits of Natural Law Original- ism, %& Notre Dame L. Rev. Online ""0 ((#",). 2.3 Randy E. Barnett, Jack Balkin’s Interaction Theory of “Com- merce,” (#"( U. Ill. L. Rev. /(&. 2.* Randy E. Barnett, The Misconceived Assumption About Con- stitutional Assumptions, "#& Nw. U. L. Rev. /"0 ((##%). 2.4 Randy E. Barnett, An Originalism for Nonoriginalists, -0 Loy. L. Rev. /"" ("%%%). 2.5 Randy E. Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, /, U. Chi. L. Rev. "#" ((##"). 2.6 Charles L. Barzun, The Positive U-Turn, /% Stan. L. Rev. "&(& ((#".). 2.1 William Baude, Constitutional Liquidation, ." Stanford L. Rev. " ((#"%). 2.)7 William Baude, Precedent and Discretion, (#"% Sup. Ct. Rev. &"&. 2.)) William Baude, Rethinking the Federal Eminent Domain Power, "(( Yale L.J. ".&, ((#"&). 2.)+ William Baude, Sovereign Immunity and the Constitutional Text, "#& Va. L. Rev. " ((#".). 2.)2 William Baude & Stephen E. Sachs, Originalism’s Bite, (# Green Bag (d "#& ((#"/). 2.)3 Charles L. Black, Jr., The Lawfulness of the Segregation Deci- sions, /% Yale L.J. -(" ("%/#). 2.)* Mary Sarah Bilder, The Corporate Origins of Judicial Review, ""/ Yale L.J. 0#( ((##/). 2.)4 Steven G. Calabresi & Gary Lawson, The Rule of Law as a Law of Law, %# Notre Dame L. Rev. -,& ((#"-). 2.)5 Steven G. Calabresi & Saikrishna Prakash, The President’s Power to Execute the Laws, "#- Yale L.J. 0-" ("%%-).

xi 2.)6 Jud Campbell, Constitutional Rights Before Realism, (#(# U. Ill. L. Rev. "-&&. 2.)1 Jud Campbell, Natural Rights and the First Amendment, "(. Yale L.J. (-/ ((#".). 2.+7 Jud Campbell, The Invention of First Amendment Federalism, %. Tex. L. Rev. 0". ((#"%). 2.+) Nathan S. Chapman & Michael W. McConnell, Due Process as Separation of Powers, "(" Yale L.J. "/.( ((#"(). 2.++ Frank H. Easterbrook, Abstraction and Authority, 0% U. Chi. L. Rev. &-% ("%%(). 2.+2 John Hart Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, ,( Yale L.J. %(# ("%.&). 2.+3 Richard H. Fallon, How to Choose a Constitutional Theory, ,. Cal. L. Rev. 0&0 ("%%%). 2.+* Martin S. Flaherty, History “Lite” in Modern American Con- stitutionalism, %0 Colum. L. Rev. 0(& ("%%0). 2.+4 Christopher R. Green, Constitutional Truthmakers, &( Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol’y -%. ((#",). 2.+5 Christopher R. Green, “This Constitution”: Constitutional In- dexicals as a Basis for Textualist Semi-Originalism, ,- Notre Dame L. Rev. "/#. ((##%). 2.+6 Mark Greenberg, Response, What Makes a Method of Legal Interpretation Correct? Legal Standards vs. Fundamental De- terminants, "&# Harv. L. Rev. F. "#0 ((#".). 2.+1 Jamal Greene, On the Origins of Originalism, ,, Tex. L. Rev. " ((##%). 2.27 Jamal Greene, Rule Originalism, ""/ Colum. L. Rev. "/&% ((#"/). 2.2) Philip A. Hamburger, The Constitution's Accommodation of Social Change, ,, Mich. L. Rev. (&% ("%,%). 2.2+ John Harrison, Executive Power (June "0, (#"%), https:// ssrn.com/id=3398427.

xii 2.22 John Harrison, The Lawfulness of the Reconstruction Amend- ments, /, U. Chi. L. Rev. &.0 ((##"). 2.23 John Harrison, Forms of Originalism and the Study of His- tory, (/ Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y ,& ((##&). 2.2* John Harrison, Reconstructing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, "#" Yale L.J. "&,0 ("%%(). 2.24 Vasan Kesavan & Michael Stokes Paulsen, Is West Virginia Unconstitutional?, %# Cal. L. Rev. (%" ((##(). 2.25 Vasan Kesavan & Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Interpretive Force of the Constitution’s Secret Dra$ing History, %" Geo. L.J. """& ((##&). 2.26 Michael J. Klarman, Anti!delity, .# S. Cal. L. Rev. &," ("%%.). 2.21 Michael J. Klarman, Brown, Originalism, and Constitutional Theory: A Response to Professor McConnell, ," Va. L. Rev. ",," ("%%0). 2.37 Randy J. Kozel, Original Meaning and the Precedent Fallback, /, Vand. L. Rev. "#0 ((#"0). 2.3) Larry Kramer, Two (More) Problems with Originalism, &" Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y %#. ((##%). 2.3+ Kurt T. Lash, The Constitutional Referendum of %&'': An- drew Johnson and the Original Meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, "#" Geo. L.J. "(.0 ((#"&). 2.32 Kurt T. Lash, Originalism All the Way Down?, &# Const. Comment. "-% ((#"-). 2.33 Kurt T. Lash, A Textual-Historical Theory of the Ninth Amendment, /# Stan. L. Rev. ,%0 ((##,). 2.3* Gary Lawson, Mostly Unconstitutional: The Case Against Precedent Revisited, 0 Ave Maria L. Rev. " ((##.). 2.34 Gary Lawson, No History, No Certainty, No Legitimacy . . . No Problem: Originalism and the Limits of Legal Theory, /- Fla. L. Rev. "00" ((#"().

xiii 2.35 Thomas R. Lee & James C. Phillips, Data-Driven Original- ism, "/. U. Pa. L. Rev. (/" ((#"%). 2.36 Lawrence Lessig, Fidelity in Translation, ." Tex. L. Rev. ""/0 ("%%&). 2.31 Lawrence Lessig, Understanding Changed Readings: Fidelity and Theory, -. Stan. L. Rev. &%0 ("%%0) 2.*7 John F. Manning, Textualism and Legislative Intent, %" Va. L. Rev. -"% ((##0). 2.*) Michael McConnell, The Originalist Case for Brown v. Board, "% Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y -0. ("%%/). 2.*+ Michael McConnell, The Forgotten Constitutional Moment, "" Const. Comment. ""0 ("%%-). 2.*2 Michael McConnell, Textualism and the Dead Hand of the Past, // Geo. Wash. L. Rev. ""(. ("%%,). 2.*3 John O. McGinnis & Michael B. Rappaport, Reconciling Originalism and Precedent, "#& Nw. U. L. Rev. ,#& ((##%). 2.** Bernadette A. Meyler, Towards a Common Law Originalism, 0% Stan. L. Rev. 00" ((##/). 2.*4 Julian Davis Mortenson, Article II Vests Executive Power, Not the Royal Prerogative, ""% Colum. L. Rev. ""/% ((#"%). 2.*5 Julian Davis Mortenson & Nicholas Bagley, Delegation at the Founding, "(" Colum. L. Rev. (forthcoming (#("), http://ssrn.com/id=3512154. 2.*6 Caleb Nelson, Preemption, ,/ Va L. Rev. ((0 ((###). 2.*1 Caleb Nelson, Sovereign Immunity as a Doctrine of Personal Jurisdiction, ""0 Harv. L. Rev. "00% ((##(). 2.47 Caleb Nelson, What Is Textualism?, %" Va. L. Rev. &-. ((##0). 2.4) Nicholas R. Parrillo, A Critical Assessment of the Originalist Case Against Administrative Regulatory Power: New Evi- dence from the Federal Tax on Private Real Estate in the %()*s, "&# Yale L.J. (forthcoming (#("), http://ssrn.com/id=3696860.

xiv 2.4+ Michael Stokes Paulsen, A General Theory of Article V: The Constitutional Lessons of the Twenty-seventh Amendment, "#& Yale L.J. /.. ("%%&). 2.42 Michael Stokes Paulsen, Abrogating Stare Decisis by Statute: May Congress Remove the Precedential E+ect of Roe and Ca- sey?, "#% Yale L.J. "0&0 ((###). 2.43 Michael Stokes Paulsen, Does the Constitution Prescribe Rules for Its Own Interpretation?, "#& Nw. U. L. Rev. ,0. ((##%). 2.4* Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Intrinsically Corrupting In,u- ence of Precedent, (( Const. Comment. (,% ((##0). 2.44 Je8rey A. Pojanowski, Why Should Anyone Be an Original- ist?, &" Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo Online 0,& ((#".). 2.45 Je8rey A. Pojanowski & Kevin C. Walsh, Enduring Original- ism, "#0 Georgetown L.J. %. ((#"/). 2.46 Richard A. Posner, What Is Obviously Wrong with the Federal Judiciary, Yet Eminently Curable, Part I, "% Green Bag (d ",. ((#"/). 2.41 Richard A. Posner, What Is Obviously Wrong with the Federal Judiciary, Yet Eminently Curable, Part II, "% Green Bag (d (0. ((#"/). 2.57 Richard A. Posner & Eric J. Segall, Faux Originalism, (# Green Bag (d "#% ((#"/). 2.5) Saikrishna Prakash, The Executive’s Duty to Disregard Un- constitutional Laws, %/ Geo. L.J. "/"& ((##,). 2.5+ Saikrishna Prakash, New Light on the Decision of %(&), %" Cornell L. Rev. "#(" ((##/). 2.52 Saikrishna Prakash & Michael D. Ramsey, The Executive Power Over Foreign A+airs, """ Yale L.J. (&" ((##"). 2.53 Richard M. Re, Promising the Constitution, ""# Nw. U. L. Rev. (%% ((#"/).

xv 2.5* Stephen E. Sachs, Constitutional Backdrops, ,# Geo. Wash. L. Rev. ","& ((#"(). 2.54 Stephen E. Sachs, Full Faith and Credit in the Early Congress, %0 Va. L. Rev. "(#" ((##%). 2.55 Stephen E. Sachs, Pennoyer Was Right, %0 Tex. L. Rev. "(-% ((#".). 2.56 Stephen E. Sachs, Precedent and the Semblance of Law, && Const. Comment. -". ((#",). 2.51 Stephen E. Sachs, The “Unwritten Constitution” and Unwrit- ten Law, (#"& U. Ill. L. Rev. ".%.. 2.67 Suzanna Sherry, The Founders’ Unwritten Constitution, 0- U. Chi. L. Rev. ""(. ("%,.). 2.6) Lawrence M. Solan, Can Corpus Linguistics Help Make Originalism Scienti!c?, "(/ Yale L.J. F. 0. ((#"/). 2.6+ Lawrence B. Solum, The Fixation Thesis: The Role of Histor- ical Fact in Original Meaning, %" Notre Dame L. Rev. " ((#"0). 2.62 Lawrence B. Solum, Intellectual History as Constitutional Theory, "#" Va. L. Rev. """"–/- ((#"0). 2.63 Lawrence B. Solum, Originalism and Constitutional Con- struction, ,( Fordham L. Rev. -0&–0&. ((#"&). 2.6* Joshua Stein, Note, Historians Before the Bench: Friends of the Court, Foes of Originalism, (0 Yale J.L. & Hum. &0% ((#"&). 2.64 John F. Stinneford, The Original Meaning of ‘Cruel,’ "#0 Geo. L.J. --" ((#".). 2.65 David A. Strauss, Foreword: Does the Constitution Mean What It Says?, "(% Harv. L. Rev. " ((#"0). 2.66 Seth Barrett Tillman, A Textualist Defense of Article I, Section (, Clause -: Why Hollingsworth v. Viriginia Was Rightly De- cided, and Why INS v. Chadha Was Wrongly Reasoned, ,& Tex . L. Rev. "(/0 ((##0).

xvi 2.61 David R. Upham, Interracial Marriage and the Original Un- derstanding of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, -( Has- tings Const. L.Q. ("& ((#"0). 2.17 David R. Upham, The Meanings of the “Privileges and Im- munities of Citizens” on the Eve of the Civil War, %" Notre Dame L. Rev. """. ((#"/). 2.1) Ryan C. Williams, The “Guarantee” Clause, "&( Harv. L. Rev. /#( ((#",). 2.1+ Ryan C. Williams, The Ninth Amendment as a Rule of Con- struction, """ Colum. L. Rev. -%, ((#""). 2.12 Ilan Wurman, Nondelegation at the Founding, "&# Yale L.J. (forthcoming (#("), http://ssrn.com/id=3559867.

xvii