Recently, Jonathan Gienapp published a new book that challenges originalism as inconsistent with how the Framers understood the Constitution. The title says it all: "Against Constitutional Originalism." The book has already received extremely favorable reviews. Many of those positive reviews are from people who are not themselves constitutional originalists. For a contrary opinion, I would recommend a critical commentary from John McGinnis and Mike Rappaport, who approach the book from the perspective of originalists.
Here is the introductory paragraph:
With his new book Against Constitutional Originalism, Stanford historian Jonathan Gienapp has garnered effusive praise from those eager to undermine the originalist enterprise. For those attracted to the originalist project, however, the book is unlikely to persuade. On the contrary, it highlights the persistent difficulties historians face when they venture into constitutional interpretation. Gienapp neglects the most primary of sources—the Constitution—its text, structure, and self-referential nature. He compounds this oversight by privileging mere disagreement among historical actors over rigorous evaluation of their arguments, a hallmark of legal reasoning. He also confuses objections to originalism as an interpretive method with objections to particular readings of the original meaning. Finally, Gienapp often fails to situate the Constitution in the transformative historical moment of its creation, particularly the Founders' disillusionment with the unwritten British constitution. These deficiencies weaken his case and, ironically, reinforce the intellectual strength of originalism, which at its best rigorously takes account of text and context.
