Contributions by ‘Stephen M. Griffin’

In the longstanding debate over the merits of judicial and academic originalism, the views of professional historians have played a secondary role at best. The contentious exchanges over the Second Amendment that came to a head in Justice Scalia’s controversial opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller perhaps convinced historians to assume a higher profile. Nonetheless, the historians’ critique has never come into focus on the bench or in the law schools. It has confused legal scholars in general and originalists themselves have found it elusive at best.
After reviewing these three books, I am convinced it will be far more difficult for both originalists and their opponents to ignore the substantial challenges posed by the historical critique. In particular, Jonathan Gienapp’s book embodies the views of generations of historians who share his methodological approach to the study of the past. For different reasons, the works by Jack Balkin and Mark Graber are of great significance to the debate over the role of history in constitutional argument as well. Thankfully from my point of view, historians are finally in the house. And as far as originalism is concerned, the bill they present is now due.