Watch Scalia and Breyer Debate Competing Theories of Constitutional Interpretation
If you want to deepen your understanding of the differences between “originalism” and “living constitutionalism” as competing theories of constitutional law and interpretation, there’s no better place to begin than with the 2006 debate between the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the recently retired liberal Justice Stephen Breyer.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, left, and Stephen Breyer, right, talk to moderator Charles Bierbauer, center, at a debate before the South Carolina Bar on Saturday, Jan. 21, 2012, in Columbia, S.C. (AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins)
This is Part of the "The Supreme Court’s War on the Future" Dig series
If you want to deepen your understanding of the differences between “originalism” and “living constitutionalism” as competing theories of constitutional law and interpretation, there’s no better place to begin than with the 2006 debate between the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the recently retired liberal Justice Stephen Breyer.
Originalism asserts that the terms and provisions of the Constitution, such those dealing with due process, equal protection, free speech and unreasonable searches and seizures must be understood today as they were understood by the Founding Fathers. For originalists, the meaning of the Constitution remains forever fixed absent an amendment to the Constitution.
Living constitutionalists assert that while the text of the Constitution is the starting point of any legal analysis, the meaning of our national charter should evolve over time to accommodate contemporary values, social needs, advances in science, and changing traditions.
The Scalia-Breyer debate was jointly sponsored by the right-wing Federalist Society and the liberal American Constitution Society, and took place at the Capitol Hilton in Washington, D.C.
You can watch the full discussion (running time 1:35) here.
Alternatively, you can zoom in on a 8:27 segment edited by the Federalist Society that lays out the key differences here.
Your support is crucial...As we navigate an uncertain 2025, with a new administration questioning press freedoms, the risks are clear: our ability to report freely is under threat.
Your tax-deductible donation enables us to dig deeper, delivering fearless investigative reporting and analysis that exposes the reality beneath the headlines — without compromise.
Now is the time to take action. Stand with our courageous journalists. Donate today to protect a free press, uphold democracy and uncover the stories that need to be told.
A new Second Amendment appeal could radically expand the scope of District of Columbia v. Heller, handicapping Congress for years to come.
The implications of Justice Thomas’ tenure on the nation’s top court extend far beyond his own career and legacy.
And with Neil Gorsuch and now Brett Kavanaugh in tow, the president is well on his way achieving his objective.
The confirmation of President Trump's nominee would mark the culmination of a right-wing legal counterrevolution that has been decades in the making.
The president has chosen a candidate who poses a great threat to progressive values and causes—and one who might shield him from Mueller.
The only way to reduce the number of firearm deaths in the United States is to abolish gun ownership.
You need to be a supporter to comment.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.