In the following piece, James Wilson Fellow John Ehrett examines Prof. Adrian Vermeule’s Common Good Constitutionalism. Ehrett begins by teasing out the problem at the heart of Vermeule’s work: the author’s perception of textual interpretation’s relationship with originalism. He then explains what originalism truly means and common misconceptions about it. We have included a few excerpts below for your perusal.

“Adrian Vermeule’s Common Good Constitutionalism is really two books in one. The first is an exposition and defense of the classical view of what law is—an ordinance of right reason for the common good, directed toward the objective of human flourishing. The second, by contrast, is a treatment of what this classical legal tradition, in Vermeule’s view, should look like in practice.”

“On the one hand, Vermeule argues that originalism needs to be ‘properly chastened,’ and in a sense redeemed, by acknowledging the principle that text is always interpreted in accordance with a set of background beliefs….On the other hand, Vermeule compares originalism and the classical legal tradition to ‘oil and water,’ alleging that they are irreconcilable in principle and that originalism (along with progressivism) lies on the opposite side of a ‘gulf’ from common good constitutionalism.”

“At the very least, this attempted distinction among doctrines is rhetorically muddled. But far more problematic, for purposes of the book’s overarching claim, is Vermeule’s eventual argument that, because textual interpretation always incorporates background beliefs and assumptions, originalism as such is an ‘illusion.’”

“At the end of the day, I am not really convinced Vermeule’s book is a blueprint for a paradigm shift so much as it is an exhortation to do our legal reasoning better, to no longer ‘paper over’ elemental questions of the common good and foundational metaphysics. On that much, I undoubtedly agree. And certainly his project of common good constitutionalism promises—if not a way through our jurisprudential impasses—at least a more honest articulation of the issues in play. For that, he deserves our appreciation.”

Please click here for the full piece.