One Is Not Enough: <i>Session</i>, the Social Status Provision, and Consistent and Definitive Constructions

Originalism really is “a theory working itself pure.” But most of the blood, sweat, and tears in the enterprise are spilled over the federal constitution. At least partially as a result of those efforts, though, more and more important legal questions are examined under state law—and in particular, state constitutions. And so it is more important than ever to work through the hard methodological questions that will help produce answers. Presiding Justice Nels S.D. Peterson’s landmark article “Principles of Georgia Constitutional Interpretation” breaks key ground in this area—and this Article aims to take the shovel and keep digging. ... Thus, this Article proposes answers to several key questions in Georgia Constitutional interpretation. How many cases are needed to establish a consistent and definitive construction? More than one; possibly several. How “consistent” and “definitive” must they be? Enough that reasonable people, familiar with the legal context, would believe the court had arrived at a settled meaning resolving a range of applications of the provision. Must the cases parse constitutional text? They must at least purport to do so. And, finally, how convincingly must the cases’ interpretation of the text be? At least enough that reasonable people would not quickly assume the court was plainly wrong.