 |
Truce - History of the Christian ChurchA history podcast about the Christian Church. Pyramid schemes, political campaigns, and all the big questions. Author: Chris Staron
Truce explores the history of the evangelical church in America, from fundamentalism to pyramid schemes to political campaigns. Host Chris Staron uses journalistic tools to investigate how the church got here and how it can do better. The current season follows the rise of the Religious Right, examining the link between evangelicals and the Republican Party. Featuring special guests like Rick Perlstein, Frances Fitzgerald, Jesse Eisinger, Daniel K. Williams, and more. Language: en Genres: Christianity, History, Religion & Spirituality Contact email: Get it Feed URL: Get it iTunes ID: Get it Trailer: |
Listen Now...
Republicans and Evangelicals I Constitutional Originalism
Tuesday, 29 September, 2026
Give to help Chris make Truce How do we interpret the Constitution? It seems like an easy question, right? It turns out, it's quite difficult. As we wrap up season 6 of Truce, we're exploring some of the things that conservative evangelicals got out of their partnership with the GOP. One of the things they got was constitutional originalism. Constitutional originalism is a theory of interpretation that holds the Constitution should be understood according to its original public meaning at the time it was adopted. Originalists argue that this approach anchors constitutional law in objective historical meaning, rather than in the personal values or policy preferences of modern judges. By tying interpretation to the text as it was originally understood, originalism aims to preserve democratic legitimacy: changes in constitutional meaning should come from amendments passed by the people, not from judicial reinterpretation. Supporters also claim that originalism promotes stability and predictability in the law by constraining judicial discretion. Critics of originalism counter that the Constitution was written in broad, open-ended language precisely to allow adaptation to changing social and technological conditions. They argue that strict adherence to historical meanings can freeze outdated norms into modern law and fail to address contemporary realities the framers could not have foreseen. In practice, critics also contend that historical evidence is often ambiguous, allowing judges to selectively invoke history to reach preferred outcomes. As a result, the debate over originalism reflects a deeper tension between constitutional stability and constitutional flexibility in a living society. Our special guest is Austin Steelman, historian at Clemson University. Sources: These Truths by Jill LePore Reagan by Bob Spitz Griswold v. Conn. from Oyez.org Article about Robert Bork Robert Kennedy's speech about Bork on C-SPAN (about 27 minutes in) Article about Gorsuch and originalism Article about Kavanaugh AP story about Barrett's philosophy Discussion: What is constitutional originalism? Why might some people like it? Dislike it? Are there questions in US law that are not addressed by the Constitution? What are some examples? How should those be addressed in an originalist worldview? In a worldview that sees it as a living document? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
