Huang - Blog Post 10

In response to Antonin Scalia’s affirmation for an original interpretation of the text, Dworkin raises some questions about the fundamental contradictions in Scalia’s interpretations by contrasting “semantic originalism” and “expectation originalism.” Dworkin argues that if Scalia was a just textualist, he would adhere to semantic interpretation but Scalia interprets the Eighth Amendment as an expectation originalist would because there would be no need to stipulate in the Constitution that the right to life may be taken away after due process because the Eighth Amendment makes capital punishment unconstitutional anyway. On the other hand, a semantic originalist would have to choose between interpreting the text such that cruel and unusual punishment means cruel and unusual “at the date of the enactment” or that it means “forbidding whatever punishments are in fact cruel and unusual” (120). 

However, this raises some fundamental questions. Is morality timeless? Can the written text be the basic principle that is timeless but written with a mistaken expectation? Does this mean the text itself illustrates still timeless moral principles or is it now something else entirely? If morality is timeless, then does that mean if an amendment is rewritten by legislatures today, it should still mean the same thing? (Scalia would disagree with this point, making his argument, like Dworkin argues, inconsistent).

I would argue, though, that morality is not timeless and therefore must be “dated” because human history simply proves otherwise and instead has reflected “progress of a maturing society” (46). At some point in time, and in some countries around the world or even some people in some cities in the U.S. today, some might argue that morality does not point to children’s rights or any right that you might deem unacceptable to offend (freedom from physical assault and adequate defense in court via due process — as Scalia even draws this conclusion himself not too long ago). It is easy to assume that a disagreeable stance is “preposterous,” but it is clear that throughout history of different governments, civilizations, and even in this class, people may arrive at different moral conclusions. Even with strong moral convictions and high belief in your own intelligence, surely, there is a chance that you or I am arriving at a “preposterous” conclusion. Moreover, if moral principles are locked in because of their timelessness and universality, then there should be no reason to lock them into place. Instead, people should just arrive at the same conclusion, no matter what point in time the question is raised. Thus, instead of viewing morality as something that cannot be “dated,” it is more logical to adhere to the inherently democratic value of reflecting the “progress of a maturing society.”