Eliot Spitzer interviews Fareed Zakaria and Simon Schama about interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
It’s good to hear Spitzer say that “the word originalism” is “at the heart of so much of this debate” over constitutional interpretation. But the interview features a host with no sympathy for originalism interviewing two guests with no sympathy for originalism. Not surprisingly, originalism comes off poorly.
And here's a question Spitzer could have asked, after the guests observed that the Constitution has no single meaning and that it needs to be modernized through interpretation: Do either Zakaria or Schama think the Fourteenth Amendment’s original guarantee of birthright citizenship is open to modernization and re-interpretation in light of modern needs and circumstances? (I’m guessing they don’t, but I’m curious why not).
Posted at 9:00 AM