Response and Colloquy

JAMES FLEMING: So we\u27ll open it up to questions. Pnina Lahav? PNINA LAHAV: Jack, it\u27s all wonderful, it\u27s great scholarship, and it\u27s certainly impressive, but it\u27s not originalism. Tell us more about that. JACK BALKIN: You can understand originalism as a formal matter, as a political phenomenon, and as a cultural phenomenon. As a formal matter, I think Larry Solum has a good definition of originalism. Originalism has three basic claims. First, originalists believe that something is fixed at the time of adoption of a constitution; that\u27s the fixation thesis. Second is the amendment thesis: whatever this thing that is fixed can\u27t be changed except through amendment. Third is the consequences thesis: that this thing, which is fixed at the time of adoption and can\u27t be changed except through amendment, matters for the correct interpretation of the Constitution. Originalism is a family of theories, all of which share these three elements in common. And I claim that my theory also has these three elements. First of all, what is fixed at the time of adoption is the original semantic meaning of the text. Second, it can\u27t be altered, except through an Article V amendment. And third, it matters for interpretation; it\u27s the framework on which all construction is built. There are some things that you just can\u27t do because of the text. Some of them are obvious; some of them are a little more subtle. And so, as a formal matter, mine is an originalist theory