Doctrinal Principles of Originalism as a Method of Constitutional Interpretation by the Supreme Court of the United States

The purpose of the article is to consistently and comprehensively reveal the issues of originalism and to study the main stages of development of the modern originalist theory of interpretation of the US Constitution from the point of view of doctrinal, theoretical-legal and practical positions.The novelty of the article consists in the development of doctrinal provisions of originalism as a method of interpreting the Constitution by the US Supreme Court at various stages of its development.It is found that at the initial stage, the originalism of original intentions, also called old originalism or intentionalism, was considered as a mechanism for implementing the doctrine of judicial restraint within the framework of constitutional proceedings, which is expressed in the limitation of judicial discretion and the manifestation of judicial respect for the choice of the legislator (judicial deference) in the form of revealing the intentions of persons who participated in the development of constitutional provisions.It is shown that originalism became an attempt to theoretically substantiate the need to move away from liberal judicial activism, calling on the judges of the US Supreme Court to recognize laws as unconstitutional only in extreme cases.Originalism later combined doctrinal views about original (primary) social meaning and the distinction between the concepts of "interpretation" and "constructionism".It is argued that the opposition of the originalist concept of constitutional interpretation to the concepts of strict (narrow) interpretation (strict constructionism) or free (broad) interpretation (overbreadth constructionism) is devoid of any meaning, since they are all different methodological approaches to the study of the dialectically unified process of interpreting the Constitution.Supporters of each of the concepts use different types of