Frank B. Cross (University of Texas) has posted The Practical Meaning of Originalism on Bepress. Here is the abstract:
Originalism may be the most commonly accepted practice of constitutional interpretation, and it is certainly the most widely discussed. However, most of the analysis of the method is at a purely theoretical level and largely ignores practice at the Supreme Court. In this article, I consider six major sources of originalist evidence and how they have been used by justices on the Court. The recent era has seen a flourishing reliance on originalism, though it is not so conservatively oriented as often assumed. The research also shows that originalism appears to have no effect on how the justices vote. Their ideological preferences override whatever originalist sources seem to suggest. This is probably a consequence of the great indeterminacy of originalist sources, and it suggests that the debate of originalism is one of little practical meaning.
Posted at 7:00 AM