There are a number of ways of attempting to justify following the Constitution’s original meaning. Some people believe that originalism constrains judges. Others see the Constitution as the choice of the people under a popular sovereignty view. We seek to justify following both the Constitution and the original meaning based on the normative desirability of the Constitution. If the Constitution is a good one, then good consequences will result from following it.
But we do not base our normative argument simply on the assertion that the Constitution is a good one. Instead, we believe that the goodness of the Constitution in a pluralistic society can also be seen though the method for enacting it.
We can summarize our argument in three simple propositions. First, stringent supemajority rules provide the best way to make a national constitution. Second, the United States Constitution was enacted mainly under such rules. Third, it is the original meaning that was enacted under those supermajority rules and therefore it is that meaning that should be followed today.
1. Let us expand on each of these points. First, relatively stringent supermajority rules will likely produce a good constitution and there is no other superior method. As with a criminal trial, there are strong arguments for accepting its results.
We can see the virtues of a supermajoritarian constitutional enactment process by contrasting it with majority rule. While something close to majority rule is generally the best approach to ordinary legislation, permitting a majority to entrench constitutional norms would be problematic.
First, because entrenched norms cannot easily be eliminated, controversial entrenchments can be extremely divisive and partisan. Supermajority rules, in contrast, screen norms for substantial consensus and bipartisan support. The resulting consensus creates legitimacy and allegiance as citizens come to regard the Constitution as part of their common bond. [...]