The Formation of the Doctrine of Originalism in U.S. Constitutional Justice: A Historical and Legal Analysis

This study focuses on the formation and evolution of originalism as a key method of constitutional interpretation in the practice of the U.S. Supreme Court. It examines the historical dynamic of the shift from an intuitive reliance on the Framers' intent in the early Republic to the institutionalized methodological paradigm that dominates modern American constitutional jurisprudence. The objective prerequisites for the rise of the judiciary within the separation-of-powers system are analyzed, stemming from the succinctness of constitutional language and the reception of English common law. Special attention is given to the contradictory nature of originalism: despite its commitment to fixing a provision’s meaning, it can yield diametrically opposed conclusions from the same historical sources, as demonstrated through landmark precedents. The work also engages the debate over the relationship between originalism and teleological and historical modes of interpretation. The methodological framework rests on a historical-legal analysis of judicial precedents, constitutional documents, and doctrinal sources, situated systemically within the political and economic context of their respective periods. The study’s novelty lies in its periodization of originalism’s genesis, distinguishing a phase of spontaneous, intuitive application (late 18th century to the first half of the 20th century) from a phase of doctrinal crystallization (second half of the 20th century to the early 21st century) as a conservative reaction to judicial activism. Contrary to the common perception of this method as monolithic, the author concludes that it is internally fragmented, given the divergent readings the same historical artifacts can support. The argument is advanced that originalism is an integrative method, combining features of historical and subjective-teleological approaches, and serves not only as a tool of legal hermeneutics but also as a significant political myth that consolidates the American nation. The practical relevance of the work lies in the possibility of extrapolating the identified patterns to analyze current trends in the U.S. Supreme Court’s activity, particularly in the context of the consolidation of a conservative majority in the 2020s.