Over at NRO's Bench Memos, Ed Whelan weighs in on the discussion between Matthew Franck and Jack Balkin on originalism and abortion with a series of three posts. The first post offers a brief summary of Balkin's argument, as Whelan sees it. This post also notes this paper by Michael Rappaport and John McGinnis critiquing Balkin's arguments. The second post draws out the distinction between Balkin's approach to original meaning and that endorsed by Justice Scalia (for whom Whelan clerked). The third post focuses on Balkin's interpretation of the equal protection clause, which provides the basis for Balkin's argument that the original meaning of the Constitution protects abortion rights. As readers might expect, Whelan and Balkin disagree.
Related Posts (on one page):
- More Bench Memos Boys v. Balkin:
- Brayton on Franck v. Balkin & Franck v. Pilon:
- Balkin Responds to Whelan:
- Balkin & Franck on Originalism -- Whelan Weighs In:
- Originalism vs. Judicial Restraint:
- Franck v. Balkin on Originalism: