Proponents of originalism argue that judges must adhere faithfully to the meaning of constitutional texts as those texts would have been understood at the time of their adoption. In the case of the 14th Amendment, such an approach would limit clauses like “equal protection of the laws” to nineteenth century understandings of equality. Since women were not equal to men under the law in 1868, and since the framers of the 14thAmendment did not advance gender equality as one of its purposes, originalism poses a quandary for women’s rights in the 21st century. The Center for Constitutional Design at Arizona State University College of Law hosted a panel of scholars and judges to discuss the question: Can originalism be squared with constitutional protections for women under the 14thAmendment.
Participants include:
James Weinstein, Dan Cracchiolo Chair in Constitutional Law in the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
Mary Ann Case, Arnold I. Shure Professor of Law at the University of Chicago.
Tessa Dysart, Assistant Director of Legal Writing and Clinical Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, Editor-in-chief of the Journal of Appellate Practice & Process
Stefanie Lindquist, Executive Director | Center for Constitutional Design
Foundation Professor of Law and Political Science | Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
Share this post