At The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf: The 'Originalists Against Trump' Manifesto. He adds this argument:
The few prominent originalists who support Donald Trump fail to understand not only the shortcomings listed [in the anti-Trump statement], but the catastrophe that will befall the originalist cause if the GOP rallies around a president as he subverts originalism. In that case, neither major political coalition would be defending the approach. It is far better, from an originalist perspective, to have one major party working on behalf of originalism, even if that party does not control the presidency for the next four years, than to have the only party that might plausibly advance that agenda be overtaken by a man who neither understands nor respects the Constitution.
There are plenty of reasons to oppose Trump but I am not persuaded that this is one. True, if Republicans "rall[y] around [Trump] as he subverts originalism," that would be bad for originalism. But I'm doubtful this will happen. I don't think Republicans (especially Republican intellectuals and Republican congressional leaders) are likely to rally around Trump. More likely, they will chart an independent course, perhaps in alliance with Democrats who would seek to use the Constitution to limit potential Trump excesses.
Further, I don't think it's ultimately a productive situation to have only one major party working for orignalism. As the originalists-against-Trump statement says, originalism need not be a partisan issue. But for it not to be, Democrats need to see some advantage to it. Here's one advantage: it limits the power of the President. A Trump presidency would highlight that point. That might not be a bad thing.
(Thanks to Michael Perry for the pointer).
Posted at 6:12 AM