During an interview aired on Friday’s edition of PBS’s “Firing Line,” U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Judge Amul Thapar defended his philosophy of original public meaning originalism and noted that people who advocate against originalism and believe the Constitution should be viewed as a living document would never want contracts they entered into viewed as a living document.
Thapar stated, “So, when I was appointed, as you noted, to the Sixth Circuit in 2017, my neighbor heard about it — and he’s a dear friend, but he’s a businessman, he doesn’t think about [these things] — and read in the paper that I was an originalist and he came running down…and he said, ‘Oh my gosh, I can’t believe it. You’re an originalist. You’re one of those people.’ And I said, ‘Mike, you’re a businessman, right?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘You sign contracts, correct?’ And he said, ‘Yeah, I sign contracts all the time.’ ‘And you sign contracts with other parties and you put that agreement in writing?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘And those words reflect your understanding, what you understood the words to mean at the time when you signed the contract?’ He said, ‘Yeah.’ ‘If you have a dispute, when I interpret your contract, should I try to figure out what you all meant, or should I tell you what I think is best for you or interpret it how I want to interpret it?’ And he said, ‘Of course you should interpret it by what we all meant at the time we signed it.’ And I said, ‘You too are an originalist now.’ That’s all an originalist is doing, is interpreting the document, meaning the Constitution, at the time it was ratified. And as an original public meaning originalist, you’re trying to figure out what those words meant to the people that ratified and blessed the document.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett