Last night, we took an in-depth look at what's known as the originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

Tonight, Jeff Bennett has a conversation with a historian who has a different view of America's most important governing document.

It's part of our On Democracy series about the range of perspectives about how our government should function, what led to this moment, and where the country goes next.

Originalism is often countered by the idea that the Constitution is a living, breathing, document

meant to be interpreted and changed along with the times.

Jillipur is a historian at Harvard University and author of the new book,

We the People, a history of the U.S. Constitution, and she joins us now. Thanks for being with us.

Oh, thanks so much for having me. Many conservatives, as you well know, they argue that the

Constitution should be read exactly as it was written, or at least as the framers understood

it in the late 18th century.

Why do you see that approach as flawed or even dangerous?

Well, their approach is, I think, a good faith attempt to interpret the Constitution.

Originalism is a judicial philosophy.

I happen to disagree with it as a judicial philosophy, but more importantly,

I disagree with it as a matter of history in the sense that one of the fundamental claims of

originalists is that originalism is original. And the historical record suggested it very much

is not. You could still defend it. You could still say, this is how I think we should interpret the

Constitution. But I don't think you can successfully argue the claim that it is how the

Constitution was originally intended to be interpreted. What do you say to those who argue that

originalism provides stability and protects against judicial activism?

Well, I think it's important to historicize originalism.

By that name, it doesn't emerge until 1980.

...