Arkansas Law Review
Abstract
In recent times, the principal demarcation in academic discussions of constitutional theory and judicial decision-making separates originalists and living constitutionalists. Both categories include a variety of approaches, but in essence originalists believe that a constitutional text means forever what it meant when it became part of the Constitution, whereas living constitutionalists believe that constitutional meaning is not fixed but evolves in response to societal changes. Living constitutionalists draw inspiration from Chief Justice John Marshall’s immortal words from McCulloch v. Maryland that the Constitution is “intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” For originalists, the Constitution’s original meaning prevails over constitutional interpretations based on other methodologies. Living constitutionalists tend to be more pluralistic in the type of arguments they endorse.
This article discusses the use of history in constitutional interpretation by focusing on the Constitution’s provisions relating to the vice presidency. If that approach seems somewhat idiosyncratic, it is only because it is. It is also opportunistic since it allows me to write about the subject I know best, one I have been studying for more than forty years.
Recommended Citation
Joel K. Goldstein,
History and Constitutional Interpretation: Some Lessons from the Vice Presidency,
69 Ark. L. Rev.
647
(2016).
https://doi.org/10.54119/alr.vysg3255
Available at:
https://scholarworks.uark.edu/alr/vol69/iss3/1