Justice Samuel Alito recently took to the Wall Street Journal to make a case for originalism, the interpretive method that seeks to understand the Constitution as it was understood at the time of its adoption. A new commentary from Reason's Volokh Conspiracy acknowledges that Alito's column contains some compelling arguments, but it stops short of endorsing them.
The Reason piece, published Monday, says Alito's column "makes some interesting points" yet "raises more questions than answers." The commentary does not detail which points it finds persuasive or which questions remain, but it signals that Alito's defense of originalism is unlikely to settle the ongoing debate over the method's legitimacy and application.
Because the analysis draws on a single source, there is no conflicting reporting to compare. The commentary reflects one legal scholar's reaction to Alito's essay, rather than a comprehensive survey of responses. Readers looking for a fuller accounting of originalism's strengths and weaknesses will need to look beyond both the column and this critique.