Write an half page opinion on the judicial philosophy of Constitutional
Originalism. An “originalist” seeks to make decisions based on the original intent of the authors of the
Constitution. For example, when hearing a case on freedom of a speech, an originalist would first seek to
determine what the framers (Jefferson, Madison, etc…) intended when adding this right to the constitution. The
framers did not intend freedom of speech/expression to cover pornographic material, therefore an originalist
might find censorship of this material consistent with our constitutional values. Original intent can’t always be
determined when evaluating a legal issue, particularly when modern technology is involved. In these cases, the
courts should always step back and allow Congress to determine policy.
It’s important to note that while this philosophy is popular with conservatives, it is not necessarily a
conservative philosophy. Justice Antonin Scalia, perhaps the most famous originalist, sided with the liberal
wing of the court in a narrow 5-4 decision defending flag burning as a protected constitutional right. It’s also
important that original intent does not extend to the bigotry of the framers. Neil Gorsuch, another originalist,
recently sided with the liberal wing of the court in a case defending LGBQT rights. Many framers were

comfortable with a society that applied the death penalty to cases of homosexuality. Original intent is applied to
interpretations of “core rights” enshrined by the constitution but not to which citizens are entitled to these rights.
Finally, let’s take a look at originalism and modern technology. This can be a very muddy area, for example,
how does one determine original intent regarding privacy and the internet? The framers had no conception of
the internet and how to legislate privacy in this vast “cyberspace”. A more conservative “strict constructionist”
believes in a literal interpretation of the Constitution as written, if the document does not explicitly mention the
internet then it is entirely up to congress to legislate this new technology. A more liberal “loose constructionist”
would assert that the Constitution is a living document and can still be applied to the internet, favoring the
courts (over Congress) to determine how the Constitution should apply to this new technology. An originalist
stands somewhere in the middle. For example, original intent clearly applies to privacy when browsing the
internet in your own home, the framers obviously intended privacy in this setting and the government shouldn’t
allow warrantless spying on internet behavior just because your browsing information is travelling on fiber optic
cables outside your property. On the other hand, originalists often stand against net neutrality, government
regulations of internet providers banning them from limiting your