The use of history in constitutional interpretation is widespread. It is defended by scholars and practised by judges, both in Australia and, in particular, the United States. Originalism, as this practice has come to be known, also attracts many critics. There is extensive debate, for example, about whether originalism disguises or serves political agendas, or whether constitutional pre-commitment is legitimate: in short, whether the present should be bound by the past. Originalism comes in many forms, but common to all is the assumption that the meaning of constitutional provisions is to be found in the past. Critics challenge this assumption primarily on normative grounds. What originalists and critics alike rarely consider is whether, and, if so, how, it is possible to know the relevant history. Surprisingly little attention has been paid to this fundamental methodological question: if history is to guide constitutional interpretation, how should the courts ‘do’ history? What are the disciplinary rules of research that should be followed if historical meaning is genuinely to be delivered? This paper explores what conventional historians do (and the fallacies and errors they attempt to avoid), and identifies some of the basic rules of historical methodology, an awareness of which is a precondition for any claim to interpret historically. It surveys the High Court of Australia's record of reference to Australia's constitution-framing, including and following the leading ‘originalist’ case, Cole v Whitfield (1988) 165 CLR 360. It considers several alternative ways in which judges might approach the use of history methodologically, albeit without becoming historians. It neither defends nor contests originalism but concludes that history should be used in constitutional interpretation only with great care and only rarely.
What the Australian Public Knows About the High Court
