Meese was hosted by a young law student named William Pryor, who was the President of the Tulane Federalist Society Chapter. One year later, in October 1986, Meese would give the third foundational speech. And the Founders would not want it any other way." He said, "We and our distinguished opponents carry on the old tradition of free, uninhibited, and vigorous debate." Meese explained that "Out of such arguments come no losers, only truth. Originalism, Meese said "is not difficult to describe." First, "Where the language of the Constitution is specific, it must be obeyed." Second, "Where there is a demonstrable consensus among the Framers and ratifiers as to a principle stated or implied by the Constitution, it should be followed." And third, "Where there is ambiguity as to the precise meaning or reach of a constitutional provision, it should be interpreted and applied in a manner so as to at least not contradict the text of the Constitution itself." Finally, Meese laid out the terms of the great debate between the originalists and the living constitutionalists. And he responded, forcefully, to Justice Brennan. Chapter of the Federalist Society Lawyers Division. The following month, in November 1985, Meese gave the second foundational speech to the D.C. ![]() "The genius of the Constitution," Brennan said, "rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." In a speech at Georgetown, Brennan charged that originalism was "little more than arrogance cloaked as humility." Brennan endorsed living constitutionalism, and firmly rejected originalism. Three months later, Justice William Brennan, the liberal lion, felt compelled to respond. And it struck a nerve at the Supreme Court. He announced, emphatically, that the Reagan administration would "press for a jurisprudence of original intention." The DOJ would "endeavor to resurrect the original meaning of constitutional provisions and statutes as the only reliable guide for judgment." Meese's remarks sent shockwaves throughout the legal profession. And Meese delivered three foundational speeches.įirst, in July 1985, Meese spoke to the American Bar Association. The Justice Department was staffed with Federalist Society attorneys. Judge Antonin Scalia became Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Rehnquist became Chief Justice Rehnquist. Over the span of one year, there would be a revolution in the law. Chief Justice Burger would begin his final term on the Supreme Court. Edwin Meese III was sworn in as the Seventy-Fifth Attorney General. President Reagan was sworn in for his second term. But before I can even talk about originalism in the lower courts, or in any court for that matter, I need to pay deep and profound respect to the namesake of tonight's event: Edwin Meese III who is with us today. The topic of my remarks is Originalism and Stare Decisis in the Lower Courts. It is my honor to deliver the inaugural Edwin Meese III Originalism Lecture. Here is the introduction as prepared–as I often do, I ad libbed a bit: The primary topic of my remarks was " Originalism and Stare Decisis in the Lower Courts." But I began with a tribute to the namesake of the award, Attorney General Meese, who was gracious enough to attend. ![]() On March 24, 2022, I delivered the inaugural Edwin Meese III Originalism Lecture at the Heritage Foundation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |