The SCOTUS contender's 2019 dissent will alarm gun control supporters but reassure people who want judges to take this constitutional provision as seriously as others.
Why an originalist might think the same right can mean different things against the state and federal governments after all
The article explains why the Supreme Court was justified in overruling longstanding precedent in this important recent constitutional property rights case.
No constitutional provision should be ignored just because it may be difficult to discern
Trump's first Supreme Court pick is better on civil liberties than his critics want to admit.
An old argument against "flexible and changeable interpretation."
When and How Can Lower-Court Judges Be Originalists?
What makes history constitutionally relevant?
Despite occasional rhetoric to the contrary, neither conservative nor liberal justices are shy about overruling constitutional precedent they believe to be badly misguided. And that's a good thing.
Steve Sachs and I defend originalism against charges of "law office history."
If Kavanaugh is a committed originalist, you would never know it based on his complacent behavior in Timbs v. Indiana.
My latest article on "original-law originalism" with Steve Sachs
Strong originalist arguments exist for overruling the dual sovereign doctrine in a case being argued before the Supreme Court today.
Legal scholar Eric Segall argues originalism doesn't qualify as a constitutional theory because originalists disagree on too many things. His case is overstated. But if it's correct, the same criticism applies to living constitutionalism.
Living constitutionalists argue that their methodology allows us to improve constitutional law over time. But what if it actually makes it worse? Legal scholar Ernest Young raises that very question in an important new article.
Plus: Southern border will see more troops than Iraq, Syria.
First thoughts on Jonathan Gienapp's The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era
A great set of colloquies on originalism, the Federalist, and human imperfection.
Legal scholars are often accused of claiming that the Constitution fits their political views. Here are several important issues where it doesn't fit mine.
Efforts on both right and left to make the democracy-promotion the key focus of constitutional law should be rejected.
I discuss the Kavanaugh nomination, originalism, and much more with Professors Dan Epps and Ian Samuel.
The National Constitution Center summarizes contributions to the ongoing debate over the constitutionality of the Space Force - including a new Congressional Research Service report on the subject.
The issue was recently raised by legal scholar Michael Dorf, and goes back to earlier debates about whether originalism implies that the Air Force is unconstitutional.
Jonathan Adler says he's "supremely qualified," an originalist, and a critic of the administrative state. But he's a cipher when it comes to defendants' rights.
Law professors Randy Barnett and Michael Dorf argued over "originalism" at an event hosted by the Soho Forum.
Some originalists believe that following the original meaning of the Constitution is intrinsically valuable, while others support it only for instrumental reasons. The difference between the two approaches has important implications.
The originalist case for a unitary executive falls apart in an era when many of the powers wielded by the executive branch were not originally supposed to be federal powers in the first place.
You don't have to be an originalist to conclude that the Constitution requires congressional authorization for war.
