Last updated on October 16, 2020
Another in a line of proposed questions for Amy Coney Barret at the confirmation hearing. I actually think it is criminal if these questions are not asked.
You are an open and staunch advocate of the “Originalism” theory of interpreting the Constitution, a theory popularly associated with your model, Justice Antonin Scalia.
Originalism and Women
Q. By your Originalism theory, the meaning of the US Constitution today is defined without any input from women. At the time the Constitution was written and adopted, women weren't allowed to vote. No woman was allowed in the Constitutional Convention.
— The women at that time had views, correct? And those women’s views no doubt influenced the decision whether or not to adopt the US Constitution, right? Women were not irrelevant idiots, right?
–— What sources and authorities regarding women’s views have you ever consulted to inform your “originalist” interpretation?
—— You have not done so because you are entirely comfortable with having the Constitution’s authoritative meaning today controlled only by property-holding White men in the 1780’s, right?
–— According to your view, if women were barred from participating in the formation and passage of the Constitution, that is just too bad for US women today, right?
-— The Constitution means only what those White men (frequently slaveholders) meant?
-— At bottom, your Originalism view is that the “authoritative” meaning of the US Constitution is not informed by the views of women . . then or now, right?
Originalism and Race
Q. The US Constitution became effective in 1788. At that time there were approximately 700,000 African American slaves (about 18% of the total US population). How does Originalism go about discovering and applying the view of African-American people in 1787 when determining the “original” meaning of the Constitution?
Q. If you think slaves should be disregarded today too . . . in 1790 there were approximately 60,000 free African Americans in the U.S. In applying your Originalism theory, what steps, if any, have you taken to ascertain the view point of these founding fathers?
-— Again: You have not done so because you are comfortable with having the Constitution’s authoritative meaning controlled only by these 1780’s White men, right?
–— According to your view, if African Americans were barred from participating in the formation and passage of the Constitution, that is just too bad for African Americans since then, correct?
— The Constitution means only what those White men (frequently slaveholders) meant back then, correct?
–— And you are not just comfortable with that, correct? You are an advocate of that outcome, correct?
–— And you will make this outcome happen, if given the chance, right?
The Politicus is a collaborative political community that facilitates content creation directly on the site. Our goal is to make the political conversation accessible to everyone.Any donations we receive will go into writer outreach. That could be advertising on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit or person-to-person outreach on College campuses. Please help if you can: