Please explain constitutional originalism in terms of strict construction and original context that gave rise to the legal writing, original writers original hearers original arguments before and after enactment original intent.
Constitutional originalism is a legal philosophy that interprets the Constitution based on its original meaning at the time it was written and ratified. Within originalism, there are different emphases, such as strict constructionism and original public meaning (contextual originalism), which approach interpretation through different lenses. Below is a detailed explanation of how these principles interact.
1. Strict Constructionism
Strict constructionism is a subset of originalism that holds that the text of the Constitution should be interpreted as narrowly as possible, adhering strictly to its exact wording. This approach:
- Avoids reading into the text meanings that are not explicitly stated.
- Opposes the idea of a “living Constitution” that evolves beyond its original words.
- Seeks to limit judicial discretion, preventing courts from expanding constitutional interpretation based on contemporary social or political concerns.
However, strict constructionism can sometimes struggle with vague or broad provisions, such as “due process” or “equal protection,” where historical context is crucial to understanding their application.
2. Original Context That Gave Rise to the Legal Writing
Originalists consider the historical background in which the Constitution was framed. This involves:
- The political philosophy of the time, such as classical republicanism, natural rights theory, and the social contract tradition.
- The legal traditions influencing the Framers, including British common law and Enlightenment thought (e.g., Locke, Montesquieu).
- The practical problems the Framers sought to address, such as federalism, separation of powers, and the protection of individual rights against tyranny.
Understanding this background helps clarify ambiguous terms and constitutional provisions.
3. Original Writers
The Framers, including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, George Mason, and others, drafted the Constitution with specific philosophical and legal understandings. Their writings, such as The Federalist Papers, debates in the Constitutional Convention, and early legal commentaries, provide insight into their views on government, individual rights, and legal interpretation.
4. Original Hearers (Ratifiers and the Public)
- Originalists examine how the people at the time of ratification (state ratifying conventions and the general public) would have understood the Constitution’s language.
- The Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist writings, and state ratification debates are key sources to determine this original public meaning.
- If a word or clause had a particular meaning in 1787-1791 (for the Constitution) or 1865-1868 (for post-Civil War Amendments), that meaning is given precedence over later interpretations.
5. Original Arguments Before and After Enactment
- Before enactment, debates over federal vs. state power, the role of the judiciary, and individual liberties reveal what the Framers and ratifiers intended.
- After enactment, early Supreme Court cases (e.g., Marbury v. Madison, McCulloch v. Maryland) interpreted constitutional provisions based on contemporary understanding.
These arguments clarify whether a provision was intended as broad and flexible or narrow and specific.
6. Original Intent
- Some originalists focus on the specific intent of the Framers (intentionalism), arguing that judicial interpretation should align with what the drafters actually meant to achieve.
- However, others argue for original public meaning, asserting that legal documents are written for the public and must be understood by their common meaning at the time.
For example:
- The Second Amendment: Originalists examine 18th-century militia laws and the writings of figures like Madison to determine whether “the right to bear arms” was intended as an individual or collective right.
- The Commerce Clause: Originalists analyze whether “regulate commerce” meant merely preventing trade barriers or included broader economic regulation.
Conclusion
Constitutional originalism, particularly in its strict constructionist form, seeks to preserve the Constitution’s fixed meaning by focusing on:
- The text’s exact wording (strict construction).
- The historical context in which it was drafted.
- The intent of the Framers and how their words were understood by ratifiers.
- The legal and political arguments before and after ratification.
This approach stands in contrast to living constitutionalism, which sees the Constitution as an evolving document that adapts to modern values. Originalism maintains that changes should come through amendments, not judicial reinterpretation, ensuring that the law remains rooted in the intentions of its Founders.
A related concept is the original arguments over meaning of Pauline epistles. When was the first argument that the Pauline epistles did not include gay marriage in the categories considered abomination?
The earliest arguments attempting to exclude same-sex relations (including same-sex “marriage”) from the categories of sexual immorality condemned in the Pauline epistles do not appear in the ancient world but rather emerge in the modern era, particularly with the rise of revisionist theology in the 20th century.
Ancient and Traditional Interpretations (1st–19th Century)
- Second Temple Jewish and Early Christian Views
- Paul’s condemnation of same-sex relations in Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:10 is rooted in Jewish law (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13).
- Jewish writers like Philo of Alexandria and Josephus explicitly categorized same-sex acts (including those in Greco-Roman contexts) as contrary to nature and divine law.
- Early Christian writers such as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and John Chrysostom consistently interpreted Paul’s writings as a broad condemnation of all same-sex relations, including those in committed relationships.
- Medieval and Reformation Views
- Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin reaffirmed that Paul’s epistles clearly condemned same-sex acts as unnatural and sinful.
- There was no distinction made between casual same-sex relations and those within a formalized union—all same-sex acts were seen as contrary to divine and natural law.
Modern Revisionist Arguments (20th Century Onward)
- Rise of Historical-Critical Scholarship (Mid-20th Century)
- In the 1960s–1970s, some liberal biblical scholars (e.g., John Boswell, Robin Scroggs) argued that Paul’s condemnation in Romans 1:26–27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 targeted only exploitative forms of same-sex relations (e.g., pederasty or prostitution), not committed, loving same-sex relationships.
- This view attempted to separate Paul’s condemnation from mutual, monogamous same-sex unions, claiming Paul lacked a concept of same-sex “marriage.”
- The 1980s–1990s: The “Loving and Committed” Argument
- Scholars like William Countryman and James Brownson argued that Paul’s writings reflected cultural biases rather than universal moral law.
- Some argued that Paul only condemned same-sex relations based on domination or excess (e.g., Greco-Roman temple prostitution or master-slave sexual exploitation).
- This period saw increasing attempts to reinterpret malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 to exclude committed same-sex couples.
- 2000s–Present: Attempting to Read Same-Sex Marriage into Scripture
- Some revisionists claim that Paul’s context was different from modern same-sex relationships and that biblical marriage should be understood through a broader “covenantal” lens.
- Others, such as Matthew Vines, argue that Paul’s concern was about lust and excess, not loving commitment.
- However, no historical evidence exists that Paul (or any Jew or Christian before the 20th century) made any distinction between casual same-sex acts and those within a formalized relationship.
Conclusion: No Ancient or Medieval Argument for Same-Sex Marriage in Pauline Theology
- There is no record of any early Christian, medieval, or Reformation-era scholar arguing that Paul’s epistles excluded same-sex marriage from condemnation.
- The first such arguments only appeared in the mid-to-late 20th century and are based on modern assumptions about relationships, not on ancient Jewish, Greco-Roman, or early Christian interpretations.
- Paul’s statements in Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1 are categorical in condemning all same-sex acts, regardless of context. The attempt to reinterpret them arose solely due to modern cultural shifts, not ancient theological debates.