The debate over how to interpret the United States Constitution is as old as the document itself. Among the most influential interpretive frameworks is originalism, a methodology that holds that the Constitution’s meaning should be fixed according to the original public understanding at the time each provision was ratified. This perspective does not merely shape judicial rulings; it also profoundly influences how originalists view the amendment process and the legitimate means of constitutional change. To understand this viewpoint, one must first grasp the core tenets of originalism and then see how they apply to Article V, the mechanism for formal amendments, as well as to broader debates about stability and flexibility in a changing nation.

The Foundations of Originalism

Originalism is not a monolithic doctrine, but it shares a central premise: constitutional text should be interpreted based on its original public meaning at the time of ratification. Rather than treating the Constitution as a living document whose meaning evolves with society, originalists anchor interpretation in historical evidence, including the text's ordinary language, the debates surrounding its adoption, and the broader legal and cultural context. This approach is often contrasted with the "living constitution" philosophy, which argues that interpretation should adapt to modern circumstances, sometimes stretching the text beyond its original meaning.

Textualism and Original Public Meaning

Within originalism, two main strands have emerged. Original intent focuses on what the Framers personally intended, while original public meaning looks at how the text would have been understood by a reasonable person at the time of adoption. The latter, championed by Justice Antonin Scalia among others, has become the dominant modern version. It emphasizes that the Constitution is a legal text, not a collection of subjective intentions, and that its objective meaning locks in at ratification. This principle has direct implications for constitutional change: if the meaning is fixed, then formal amendment via Article V becomes the only legitimate way to alter the Constitution's substantive commands.

Originalists believe that fidelity to original meaning protects democratic self-governance. When judges or other officials impose their own modern preferences under the guise of interpretation, they effectively rewrite the Constitution without the supermajority consensus required by Article V. That, for originalists, undermines both the rule of law and the people’s sovereign right to govern themselves through their highest law.

Article V and the Amendment Process

The Founders deliberately made the Constitution difficult to amend. Article V provides two methods of proposal (by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, or by a convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures) and two methods of ratification (by three-fourths of state legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of states). The supermajority thresholds ensure that any change reflects a broad national consensus, not the temporary whims of a narrow majority.

The Deliberate Design of Article V

Originalists often emphasize the wisdom embedded in Article V. During the Constitutional Convention, delegates debated how to balance stability with the ability to correct errors. Some Framers feared that an overly rigid document would lead to revolution, while others worried that easy amendment would produce instability. The compromise they reached – requiring approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states – was seen as a middle ground. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 43, the amendment process was designed to guard against "the tyranny of the majority" while still allowing for necessary improvements.

To originalists, this means the Constitution was never meant to be flexible through judicial reinterpretation. The Framers believed that any change should be vetted through multiple layers of representative democracy. That is why originalists view the amendment process not as a mere obstacle but as a foundational feature of the constitutional order. The high bar protects the document from transient political fashions and forces proponents to build durable, cross-regional coalitions.

Why Originalists Value the Supermajority Requirements

The requirement of two-thirds in Congress and three-fourths of states ensures that amendments reflect a broad, enduring consensus. Originalists argue that this prevents a simple majority from imposing its will on the entire nation, especially when the issue involves fundamental rights or structural changes. For example, a party that captures Congress and the presidency could not easily alter the First Amendment's protections because three-fourths of state legislatures – many of which may be controlled by the opposing party – would need to concur. This safeguard, in the originalist view, is not a bug but a feature.

Moreover, originalists point out that the amendment process has worked when the nation faced genuine crises or moral turning points. The Bill of Rights, the Reconstruction Amendments, and the Progressive Era amendments (such as the 16th and 17th) were all achieved through Article V. Each required years of deliberation, public debate, and building of broad coalitions. That, for originalists, is how constitutional change should happen – slowly, deliberately, with input from state governments and the people.

Originalist Views on Constitutional Change

Originalism’s core commitment – that the Constitution’s meaning is fixed at ratification – naturally leads to a preference for formal amendment over judicial reinterpretation. But originalists do not oppose constitutional change per se; they oppose change that bypasses the amendment process. They argue that the Constitution already contains powerful mechanisms for adaptability: Congress can pass statutes, states can experiment with policies, and the people can amend the text. What judges cannot do, according to originalists, is revise the Constitution to meet contemporary standards of justice.

Amendments as the Proper Mechanism

Originalists often celebrate the amendment process as the greatest expression of popular sovereignty. When the nation decides something is so important that it should be elevated to constitutional status, the people must act through their elected representatives at both the federal and state levels. This bottom-up, state-driven process ensures that amendments are ratified only after rigorous debate. Originalists point to the 14th Amendment, which fundamentally reshaped American federalism and civil rights, as a model of how constitutional change should occur. It was proposed by Congress in 1866, ratified by the states by 1868, and its meaning was publicly understood in terms of the privileges or immunities of citizens, equal protection, and due process. For originalists, judges should adhere to that original meaning, not invent new rights not expressed in the text.

Conversely, originalists reject the idea that courts can update the Constitution through expansive interpretation. For instance, the Supreme Court's recognition of a right to same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) was criticized by many originalists as an encroachment on the amendment process. They argued that the question of marriage should have been left to the political process or a formal constitutional amendment. Even if one agrees with the outcome, originalists insist that the method of change matters – and that bypassing Article V undermines democratic legitimacy.

Resistance to Judicial Interpretation and Living Constitutionalism

The living constitution approach, which holds that the Constitution's meaning can evolve over time without formal amendment, is the primary intellectual opponent of originalism. Originalists contend that this approach gives judges too much power, effectively allowing them to become unelected legislators. They argue that when judges read new rights into the Constitution – such as a right to abortion or same-sex marriage – they override the democratic process and the original meaning of the text. Instead, originalists advocate for change through the amendment process, which respects the separation of powers and federalism.

This does not mean originalists are uniformly opposed to all expansive interpretations. Some originalists find, for example, that the original public meaning of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause covers certain forms of gender discrimination, because the historical context and precedent suggest a broader principle. However, they insist that such interpretations be grounded in historical evidence, not modern policy preferences. In many cases, originalists acknowledge that the Constitution does not mandate particular outcomes; it leaves policy decisions to democratic majorities. Thus, social change should come through legislation and amendments, not judicial fiat.

The Debate Over Flexibility and Stability

The tension between flexibility and stability is at the heart of many constitutional debates. Originalists embrace the stability that comes from a fixed constitutional text, while critics argue that such rigidity can prevent necessary evolution and perpetuate injustice. This debate plays out in the context of the amendment process itself.

Arguments in Favor of Originalism

Proponents of originalism highlight several key benefits of adhering to the amendment process:

  • Stability and predictability: When the Constitution’s meaning is stable, citizens, businesses, and governments can rely on it. The rule of law is strengthened when interpretation does not shift with each political cycle or change in judicial philosophy.
  • Democratic legitimacy: Amendments require broad consensus across state lines and political parties. This supermajority requirement ensures that changes reflect a deep, durable agreement, not a fleeting majority. Originalists argue that this process produces more legitimate constitutional change than judicial imposition.
  • Respect for the Founding: Originalists view the Constitution as a binding compact made by the sovereign people. To alter its meaning without following the amendment rules is to violate that compact. Fidelity to original meaning respects the authority of those who ratified the document.
  • Preventing partisan abuse: The difficulty of amending the Constitution discourages temporary majorities from altering fundamental law for partisan gain. This preserves the Constitution’s role as a framework that transcends everyday politics.

Furthermore, originalists note that the amendment process has historically been sufficient for profound changes. The abolition of slavery, the guarantee of equal protection, the extension of voting rights, and the direct election of senators all occurred through Article V. Originalists argue that the ability to amend when national consensus emerges proves the system works; the problem, they say, is when reformers seek shortcuts through the judiciary.

Criticisms from Living Constitutionalism and Progressive Perspectives

Critics of originalism raise several objections:

  • Rigidity and gridlock: The supermajority requirements of Article V make it extremely difficult to amend the Constitution. The last successful amendment was the 27th Amendment (1992), which had been proposed in 1789. Critics argue that this gridlock prevents the Constitution from addressing modern problems such as campaign finance, health care, or environmental protection.
  • Outdated original meaning: The original public meaning of many clauses (e.g., the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause) may reflect outdated social conditions and technologies. Forcing modern society to live under 18th-century meanings can lead to unjust outcomes. Critics point to the fact that the original Constitution protected slavery and denied women the right to vote – flaws that required amendments to correct, but that remain unresolved in other areas.
  • Uneven application: Originalists often disagree among themselves about what the original meaning actually is. This can lead to subjective judgments masked as historical objectivity. Moreover, originalists sometimes cherry-pick evidence to support desired outcomes.
  • Overreliance on amendment: Critics argue that the amendment process is so onerous that it effectively prevents any change, leaving the Constitution frozen in time. This forces courts to adapt interpretation out of necessity, or else the law fails to meet evolving standards of justice.

Many progressive scholars advocate for living constitutionalism precisely because they see the amendment process as inadequate for addressing structural injustices. They argue that the Constitution’s text contains broad principles (such as "equal protection") that were intended to be applied flexibly over time. Originalists, they say, confuse the Framers’ specific applications with the broader principles.

Notable Amendments and Originalist Interpretation

Originalist judges and scholars often analyze amendments through the lens of original public meaning. This approach can produce surprising results, as originalists may disagree with originalist interpretations. However, certain patterns emerge in how originalists view major amendments.

The Bill of Rights

The first ten amendments, ratified in 1791, are central to originalist jurisprudence. Originalists emphasize that the Bill of Rights was originally understood to apply only to the federal government, not the states – a view reversed by the 14th Amendment’s incorporation doctrine. However, originalists disagree about which provisions are incorporated. Justice Thomas, for instance, has argued that the Privileges or Immunities Clause, not the Due Process Clause, is the vehicle for incorporation, and that only certain fundamental rights apply. Originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) relied heavily on original public meaning, ruling that the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense was understood at the time of ratification.

The Reconstruction Amendments

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, adopted after the Civil War, represent some of the most significant constitutional changes. Originalists generally view these amendments as transformative, but they insist on interpreting them according to their original meaning. For the 14th Amendment, this means that the Equal Protection Clause forbids racial discrimination in state laws as understood in 1868, but does not necessarily cover gender or sexual orientation discrimination unless the historical evidence supports such coverage. Originalists often point to the congressional debates and state ratification materials to determine which specific practices were intended to be prohibited. This historical inquiry can lead to narrow interpretations that critics find insufficient to remedy ongoing inequality.

The 16th and 17th Amendments

The 16th Amendment (1913) authorized a federal income tax, overturning a Supreme Court decision. Originalists generally accept this amendment as a legitimate exercise of Article V, though some debate its original meaning regarding the definition of "income." The 17th Amendment, which provided for the direct election of senators, is notable because some originalists (including Justice Scalia) expressed regret about its passage, arguing that it weakened state representation in Congress and contributed to federal overreach. This example shows that originalists can be critical of amendments themselves, judging them against the original constitutional structure rather than accepting all amendments as automatically good.

Adapting Originalism for Modern Challenges

Originalism is not a static philosophy; it has evolved significantly since its modern revival in the 1980s. Today, originalists grapple with how to handle areas where the Constitution is silent or ambiguous. Many argue that originalism does not mean the Constitution is a rigid straitjacket; it simply means that interpretation must be guided by original meaning, not contemporary values. When the original meaning does not provide a clear answer, originalists often defer to democratic processes or state experiments.

The Role of State Conventions and Unconventional Paths

One underexplored area is the Article V convention method, which has never been used to propose an amendment. Some originalists support using this method to address issues such as a balanced budget amendment or term limits. Others warn that a convention could be a "runaway" that opens the entire Constitution to revision. The original meaning of Article V regarding the convention's scope remains debated. Nevertheless, originalists generally believe that if the nation wants to change the Constitution dramatically, it should use the mechanism the Framers provided – even if that path is difficult.

Additionally, originalists often point to state-level amendments and popular initiatives as alternatives to federal constitutional change. For example, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right was anticipated by originalist scholarship and state constitutional developments. Originalists thus see state experimentation as a laboratory that can inform national consensus without requiring federal constitutional amendment.

Conclusion

Originalism offers a distinctive vision of constitutional change that prioritizes democratic deliberation, textual integrity, and historical fidelity. For originalists, the amendment process is not an obstacle but a safeguard – the only legitimate route to fundamentally altering the supreme law of the land. While critics decry the rigidity of Article V and the potential for originalism to entrench outdated values, originalists respond that the Constitution was never meant to be easily changed, and that any transformation should be deliberate, transparent, and rooted in broad popular consent.

In an era of deep political polarization, the originalist emphasis on process and consensus may seem idealistic. Yet the enduring relevance of originalism in legal scholarship and Supreme Court confirmations shows that its appeal persists. Whether one agrees or disagrees, understanding the originalist perspective on the amendment process is essential for any informed debate about how the Constitution can – and should – evolve over time.

Further Reading: