Textualism is a theory in which the interpretation of the text is based primarily on the ordinary meaning of the legal text at the time of its enactment, where little consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as the intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.
Originalism is a legal theory in the United States which bases constitutional, judicial, and statutory interpretation of text on the original understanding at the time of its adoption. Originalism consists of a family of different theories of constitutional interpretation and can refer to original intent or original meaning.
There is a third, rare, theory: Strict Constructionism. Strict construction requires a judge to apply the text only as it is expressly written, i.e., read perfectly literally. This can contradict the commonly-understood meaning of a law. For example, consider a law that specifies "the use of a knife when committing a crime should be punished by ten years in prison." This would commonly be understood as prohibiting the use of a knife to threaten or injure another person. However, read purely literally, the law would also mandate ten years in prison for dining and dashing if the diner were to use a knife to cut their food.
Theoretically most conservative jurists fall into the originalist camp. They understand that the text must be understood in light of what those who authored the text understood it to mean. They reject the concept of a "Living Constitution" adhered to by most liberal, Democratic-appointed judges.
"Theoretically" is the operative term. The current conservative majority on the Supreme Court appear to be originalist or textualist only when it supports modern conservative political goals. Originalists claim that if society changes sufficiently that the original text or its meaning is obsolete, then the text itself should be changed — by an amendment if it's a constitutional question, or by legislation if it's a matter of statutory interpretation. And they are quite strict about this when it comes to striking down liberal policies. When it comes to supporting novel conservative interpretations however, they are happy to deviate from the original interpretation and assign meaning to text that was never there. Reading recent Supreme Court decisions reveals previously unheard of rationales for overturning laws, or retaining others. The current push for the Unitary Executive Theory is one example.
Most of the federal government's departments were created by Congress to administer various government functions, functions that were written into law by Congress. This goes beyond the modern regulatory agencies and includes the Treasury and Justice departments. Since these departments and agencies are not creating new laws, but are executing laws created by Congress, they are part of the Executive Branch, which is headed by the president. Congress has passed laws partially shielding many of these agencies from partisan politics, for example, prohibiting the president from replacing some agency heads for political reasons. Previous administrations have accepted that this state of affairs. The Unitary Executive Theory pushed by the Heritage Foundation holds that the president is the executive branch and that has unalloyed power and authority over every aspect of the executive branch, despite laws to the contrary. The Supreme Court has supported this theory (albeit inconsistently) bolstering Trump's dictatorial, authoritarian mode of rule.
The founders would have been very surprised at this position. They were vociferously and consistently against the presidency having king-like powers and envisioned the president executing or implementing the law, not creating it, or ruling by fiat. The very structure of the Constitution limits a president, rather than giving him unlimited authority. It's clear that the current Supreme Court majority is interested primarily in advancing a conservative political and cultural agenda, not in "calling balls and strikes". This intersects in large part with Trump's agenda, but not completely. To those playing the long game, like the Heritage Foundation, and even Mitch McConnell when he was remaking the federal judiciary, Trump is a means to an end.
It's much easier to affect political and cultural change through one person, that through the often slow moving legislative process.
No comments:
Post a Comment