The Arizona Supreme Court opinion in Planned Parenthood AZ v. Mayes (1984 law) is consistent with their predominant belief in Originalism. These Justices did not accept the view that the Constitution must adapt to society as exists today and be a Living Constitution. This controversial issue was not discussed in its opinion.
Today a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices are either self-described originalists or strongly lean toward originalism. Yet less than 50 years ago, originalism was considered a fringe movement, hardly taken seriously by most legal scholars.
Originalism is the theory that judges are bound to interpret the Constitution as it would have been interpreted in the historical era when it was written. Understood this way, originalism is the idea that judges must follow the law as written and not merely ignore it or reinterpret it to their liking.
Originalism is usually contrasted as a theory of constitutional interpretation with Living Constitutionalism. Living constitutionalists believe that the meaning of the constitutional text changes over time, as social attitudes change, even without the adoption of a formal constitutional amendment pursuant to Article V of the Constitution.
The AZ opinion is a sharp contrast to recent US Supreme Court opinions over the past years:
- Brown v. Board of Education (society has changed and separate but equal is unsupported; 1954)
- Roe v. Wade, 1973, overturned 2022. (women have privacy rights to abortion)
- Affordable Care Act (“Fans of judicial inventiveness will applaud once again,”2010)
- Citizens United (corporation freedom of speech and can fund campaigns; 2010)
- Hobby Lobby (separation state and religious beliefs; contraceptives, 2014)
HOA Constitutional Government 