In her new book, “The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back,” Madiba K. Dennie critiques the legal doctrine known as "originalism," calling it a movement born out of opposition to the school desegregation mandated by the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision. Her argument is broadly compatible with those made by Eric Segall in "Originalism as Faith" (Salon story here) and Erwin Chemerinsky in "Worse Than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism" (interview here). But in characterizing originalism as a “trap” and situating it historically, Dennie's analysis cuts deeper into the harm caused by originalist doctrine, without sacrificing nuance, rigor or scope.
Beyond that, to call originalism a “trap” is to imply something about freedom, and about what the U.S. Constitution actually promises. Dennie, deputy editor at the legal commentary outlet Balls and Strikes and a former counsel at the Brennan Center, advances an alternative, "inclusive" interpretation of the Constitution, rooted in the Reconstruction amendments and the Brown decision's forward-looking approach, also found in such famous cases as Loving v. Virginia, Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges — all of which have been opposed by so-called originalists.
