Journal Title

California Western Law Review





First Page


Document Type


Publication Information



In his article, Originalism: Standard and Procedure, Professor Stephen E. Sachs describes a never-ending debate between originalism's advocates and critics. Originalists argue that certain historical facts determine the Constitution's meaning. But determining these facts is difficult, if not impossible for judges, attorneys, and the public. Sachs seeks to rise above this debate, arguing that the legal community should not expect originalism to offer a procedure for interpreting the Constitution. Instead, the legal community should treat originalism as a

standard to judge interpretations.

This Article takes issue with this approach. Originalism is not like other instances in law where statutes or opinions refer to other opinions, statutes, or third-party publications. Instead, originalism requires rigorous and complex analysis of historical facts to determine the Constitution's original public meaning-an undertaking that most judges, attorneys, the public, and even legal academics may find challenging. Treating originalism as a standard does not avoid this concern, and originalism therefore remains unappealing when compared with alternate approaches to interpretation that do offer procedures for their implementation. Regardless, the legal community should confront these issues, rather than evade them.

Recommended Citation

Michael L. Smith, Originalism and the Inseparability of Decision Procedures from Interpretive Standards, 58 Cal. W. L. Rev. 273 (2022).



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.