Should SCOTUS Focus on the Original Meaning of the Constitution?

Open to Debate

Education, Society & Culture, News, Government, Politics

4.5 • 2.1K Ratings

🗓️ 9 June 2023

⏱️ 52 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Originalism is a way of interpreting the Constitution that could help it be understood through either framer’s intent or what the public would’ve intended at the Constitution’s ratification. Supporters say the Constitution needs modern interpretation, even if some pre-existing circumstances are nonexistent. Others argue it doesn’t make sense to keep our laws limited to what society back then would’ve valued. In this context, we debate: Should the Supreme Court Focus on the Original Meaning of the Constitution? Arguing Yes: Randy Barnett Arguing No: Prof. Thomas Colby Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	I am so over this situation, Peter. I'm unbumble to find something real. You know, like someone
0:07.5	you can count on, someone who actually cares about what you think. I just want someone
0:12.5	who's ready for that long-term kind of love. Whether you're looking for your next boyfriend,
0:18.9	girlfriend, casual date or just someone who truly gets you, it's waiting for you unbumble.
0:25.6	Hi everybody, welcome to Open to Debate. I'm John Don Van. And in this episode we are looking
0:36.6	at the Supreme Court and one word that you will hear a lot when the role of our nation's
0:42.0	highest court is up for discussion, for example when somebody's under consideration for a seat
0:46.0	on the court, like Amy Coney Barrett in late 2020. And Senator Ben Sass asked her about that
0:52.7	very word. When you define yourself as an originalist, what does that mean? Right. So originalism
0:59.8	means that you treat the constitution as law because it commits these texts to writing. And in
1:07.4	interpreting that law, you interpret it in accord with the meaning that people would have understood
1:13.4	it to have at the time that it was ratified. So yes, originalism, original meaning. So what is it?
1:19.4	And why does it attract so much controversy who is for it, who's against it? Why does it matter?
1:25.1	Here's how we're going to debate the question. Should the Supreme Court focus on the original
1:30.0	meaning of the constitution? Let's meet our debaters arguing that the answer to that question is yes,
1:35.3	American legal scholar, professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University in Washington and
1:40.1	director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, Randy Barnett. Welcome Randy to Open to Debate.
1:45.0	Great to be here, John. And arguing that the answer to that question should be no associate dean
1:49.6	and professor of law at the law school across town, George Washington University, Thomas Colby.
1:54.4	Thomas, thanks so much for joining us on Open to Debate. Thanks so much for having me.
1:58.0	So before we get started, I know both of you are passionate about this topic and I just want to
2:03.0	get a sense of why that is. So Randy, what are the stakes for you in this argument about originalism?
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Open to Debate, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Open to Debate and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.