Originalism is an ideology related to the interpretation of the United States constitution which declares that all statements written in the constitution must be read based on the original understanding of those who wrote it at the time. It was championed by late Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, pictured here. There are two broad schools of thought within this ideology: original intent, which says that the interpretation of the constitution must be consistent with what was meant by the authors, and original meaning, which believes that the interpretation of the constitution must be consistent with what was understood by rational people living at the time. This belief is in direct conflict with the idea of a “living constitution”, which holds that the constitution evolves as society evolves, and must be read and interpreted as such, not worrying about what the original intent or meaning was. In Gratz v Bollinger and Grutter v Bollinger, the court upheld stare decisis and it was an originalist analysis on the Fourteenth Amendment in both landmark cases which led to the decision. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, no one in the United States can be denied “equal protection” under the law. This Amendment was ratified in 1868 and was interpreted as such while deciding on a ruling. Due to this belief, the Court struck down the point-based system followed at the University of Michigan. While dissenting Justices and other critics may have argued that “equal protection” includes those who have been historically discriminated against, the originalist interpretation United States constitution does not provide for that. Originalism is an interesting interpretation of the Constitution and has shaped the lives of many Americans through its power.
