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.
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.