Make more online, for less. Buy a domain and everything else you need.
Madiba K. Dennie, attorney, professor, and author of The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back.:
So Originalism is the idea that the meaning of the Constitution is fixed in time. Originalists say that we have to interpret the document today the same way it would have allegedly been interpreted 200 years ago. Now, this might sound really steeped in history, but it’s actually a relatively modern idea.
A fantastic and illuminating conversation, with three exceedingly erudite and engaging speakers. An important watch that highlights the inherent inconsistency of constitutional originalism.
Dennie, late in the discussion:
They just have to play their little game of telephone with dead slaveholders first, and then they’ll get right back to us.
That aside—on why SCOTUS takes so long to make (often awful) decisions—cracked me up. It also happens to succinctly summarize their perspective.
As a bit of background, this discussion is presented by The 92nd Street Y, New York, which regularly hosts wonderful conversations. This one explores
originalism’s controversial hold on constitutional interpretation, revealing its flaws and advocating for an inclusive constitutionalism that upholds equal rights for all.
In addition to Dennie (whose book is the catalyst for the conversation), the speakers include:
Jennifer Weiss-Wolf, of NYU Law’s Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Network is the host.
Three moments (of many!) worth highlighting:
Dennie, explaining the origins of originalism:
We saw this first start to bubble up in the backlash to Brown v. Board, really ramp up, responding more to the Civil Rights movement, and then formalized and crystallized during Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department, which basically became a sort of in-house originalist think tank for formalizing these ideas and getting them out there, as if this was a legitimate model of legal interpretation rather than cover up for conservative reactionary politics.
On why she decided to write The Originalism Trap:
Things are becoming exceedingly clear that the Court feels fully comfortable using the idea that women didn’t have rights then—at this point in time that I cherry-pick—so they can’t have rights now, or saying… the country didn’t regulate muskets in a particular way so they can’t regulate AR-15s. It’s just an intellectually bankrupt way of interpreting the Constitution that has been used to make our lives as Americans, as people who live here, a lot more dangerous.
Elie Mystal, on how he would decide cases:
14th Amendment, or GTFO.
It’s an extremely educational, fast-moving fifty minutes. (Watch at 1.25x speed if you’re short on time.)