ABSTRACT
The thesis underlying this chapter is that Originalism, as advocated by Justice Scalia, deserves a prominent place in the discussions on constitutional construction in other jurisdictions than the US as well. Most American constitutional lawyers, including the majority of the Justices on the US Supreme Court, regard the Constitution as a living document that has to be interpreted in light of present-day conditions. The Justices who use this Orginalism subscribe to the view that when interpreting the Constitution judges should insulate themselves from their personal beliefs as much as possible. Originalists like Justice Scalia will be the first to admit that this method is not perfect, because it is not always possible to discern the original meaning of a Constitutional provision. Justice Black expressed the view that, ludicrous though the Connecticut law might be, it could be struck down by the Court only if it violated a specific constitutional provision.
