Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique (Yale Law Library Series in Legal History and Reference) Hardcover – September 3, 2024

One of the best books I've read recently! I picked this book up out of curiosity, and not much background on the topic. It was perfect. The author beautifully presents background on arguments from all sides, and does so in a way that makes the book not only approachable, but quite enjoyable for the reader. Masterfully written.

A leading historian's definitive, generous-minded critique of originalism **on originalist grounds**. Gienapp's discussion takes seriously the proposition that we should engage with the Founders' world view on its own terms. He takes seriously the proposition that their settlement should govern our modern constitutional options. And then he methodically disassembles the entire edifice of modern judicial and academic originalism, **as a matter of the Founders' original understanding of how constitutions worked**This book is an instant classic. Even leading originalists agree that Gienapp meets them on their own ground. You can be the judge of whose reading is best.

This book offers a compelling critique of constitutional originalism, which both critics of originalist legal theories and (good-faith) defenders of originalism should find extremely valuable. But I’m a historian, and what I love about this book are its exploration of political ideas in early America, the strange and surprising features of this world, and Gienapp’s clear accounts of what it means to think historically. Read this bookcover-to-cover! And check out the author’s other book, The Second Creation, too.

We went to thomas Jefferson’s house in Charlottesville and this inspired us to get the book

This will be a book that endures. It’s the single best critique of originalism available.

Fruitful addition to to the conversation around originalism

An incisive look at why originalism as practiced by the current Supreme Court is problematic. The book is as accessible as it is sophisticated. It provides a stimulating tour of early American constitutional history while also confronting leading originalists on their own theoretical terms. Originalists often act as though they know more about theory than do historians, but this book puts that claim to rest. Gienapp has vast mastery of legal theory and philosophy. Originalists have a lot of work to do if they hope to catch up. Come for the history, stay for the command performance in constitutional theory. Bravo!

I wasted 11 hours and 38 minutes listening to the audiobook version of "Against Constitutional Originalism". I made it through because I couldn't believe that its author would just repeat the same thing over and over. His mantra is that Supreme Court originalist reasoning about what the 1787 US Constitution requires is defective because it doesn't consider the historical environment in which it was written, for example English common law. That is an ok point for a 3 page article, but this book is ridiculous. Very few examples are given. Since I rented this title free from my local library's Hoopla service, I just lost time, not money, so don't pity me.I even find it silly that "originalism" is a serious legal issue in this day and age. I would like to read (or listen to) a book that explains why the US has continued to worry about what a 1787 text means with respect to current situations. Would anybody want their medical treatment based on the wisdom of 1787? Other nations have adopted updated written constitutions and chaos usually doesn't break out as a result. Jefferson, who said that a constitution should have a 19 year expiration date, wrote in 1816, “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.” I would like to understand better the US allegiance to its very dated governing document.