Jonathan Gienapp: The Constitution and Historical Rupture
Michael Ramsey
Jonathan Gienapp (Stanford University) has posted The Constitution and Historical Rupture (69 pages) on SSRN, Here is the abstract: This essay is a response for a symposium on my book, Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique. It responds to criticisms made against it while further developing the book’s central themes. It contends that the problem of historical […]
Substantive Canons, Linguistic Canons, and Legal Meaning Canons
Mike Rappaport
Mike Ramsey mentioned Charlie Capps’s new paper on substantive canons. While I haven’t read the paper yet, it reminded me of a portion of a new paper that John McGinnis and I have submitted to law journals. Here is an excerpt from the paper: Some commentators question whether meanings generated by specific legal interpretive rules […]
Birthright Citizenship Re-Examined
Michael Ramsey
I have posted my new article Birthright Citizenship Re-Examined (102 Notre Dame L. Rev., forthcoming 2026) (58 pages) on SSRN. It is principally a response to this article by Kurt Lash and this article by Ilan Wurman. Here is the abstract: In 2020, I argued in Originalism and Birthright Citizenship that the original meaning of the Fourteenth […]
Michael B. Rappaport: The Unitary Executive: Presidential Control, not Removal
I recently had a guest post at Divided Argument, which is also on SSRN, entitled The Unitary Executive: Presidential Control, not Removal. Here is the abstract: This essay argues that the unitary executive theory is better grounded in presidential control or direction of executive officers than in plenary removal authority. Drawing on the Vesting Clause’s […]
George Liebmann on the Unitary Executive
Michael Ramsey
At Law & Liberty, George Liebmann: Historical Perspective on the Unitary Executive. From the introduction: Anyone reading the briefs and transcript of oral argument in the recent Slaughter case involving the president’s power to remove members of independent regulatory agencies can only be amazed at the lack of historical perspective of all the major actors, including […]
Eric Segall on the Bruen Test [Updated]
Michael Ramsey
At Dorf on Law, Eric Segall: The Roberts Court’s Dangerous and Anti-Historical Bruen Test For Gun Safety Legislation Must Be Changed. From the introduction: In 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down the most anti-originalist and irrational decision interpreting the Second Amendment in American history. In New York State Pistol & Rifle Association […]
Charles Capps: Are There Any Substantive Canons of Interpretation? [Updated]
Michael Ramsey
Charles F. Capps (Arizona State University – Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law) has posted Are There Any Substantive Canons of Interpretation? (62 pages) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Since the late 1980s, scholars have distinguished between two kinds of canons of statutory interpretation: linguistic canons, which judges invoke on the ground that they track […]
Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference in San Diego Tomorrow and Saturday
Michael Ramsey
The seventeenth annual Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference, hosted by the University of San Diego Law School’s Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, will take place tomorrow and Saturday, February 6 and 7. Here is the schedule: Friday, Feb. 6, 2026 2:30 – 3:00 Opening Remarks Michael Rappaport (USD) 3:00 – […]
Lorianne Updike Schulzke & Robert Capodilupo: Becoming Written Constitutionalism
Michael Ramsey
Lorianne Updike Schulzke (Northern Illinois University College of Law) & Robert Capodilupo (Yale Law School JD ’23) have posted Becoming Written Constitutionalism (64 pages) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Scholars have long recognized two kinds of constitutions. The British, or small-c variant meant the organization of governmental institutions and a broad swath of laws, […]
Christian Burset: The Origins of Statutory Stare Decisis
Michael Ramsey
Christian R. Burset (Notre Dame Law School) has posted The Origins of Statutory Stare Decisis (69 pages) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Federal courts apply stare decisis with extra force to decisions that interpret statutes. Critics contend that this “supercharged” deference to statutory precedents lacks a legitimate pedigree. But that charge rests on conjecture, since […]