{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreicceukrvkydxeozxseiiwkwkeijuodkitiip64j3la24rjr7cruc4",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:neopp5z3zbi24mwiena7tt7j/app.bsky.feed.post/3me7gfih2x232"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreifaqeawqq3wsv7ewfv7i5la5oqzstqednaql3a53bg44vuwhramce"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 42360
  },
  "path": "/2026/02/gienapp-responds-to-critics.html",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-06T14:30:00.001Z",
  "site": "https://legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com",
  "tags": [
    "The Constitution and Historical Rupture",
    "_Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique_",
    "Constitutionalism, Then and Now: Response to McConnell, Stoner, TerBeek, and Thomas,"
  ],
  "textContent": "**Jonathan Gienapp, Stanford University** , has posted two essays in which he responds to critics.  The first is The Constitution and Historical Rupture, which appeared in the _Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities_:\n\n> \n>\n> This essay is a response for a symposium on my book, _Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique_.  It responds to criticisms made against it while further developing the book's central themes.  It contends that the problem of historical rupture—that the eighteenth-century U.S. Constitution presupposed a very different way of thinking about constitutionalism and law than reigns today—is the most important problem implicated by the theory of constitutional originalism, and yet remains largely neglected. It further contends that were originalists to finally confront this problem, the theory could not survive that reckoning, not without abandoning its defining features.\n\nThe second is  Constitutionalism, Then and Now: Response to McConnell, Stoner, TerBeek, and Thomas, which appeared in _American Political Thought_.\n\n--Dan Ernst\n\n\n\n",
  "title": "Gienapp Responds to Critics",
  "updatedAt": "2026-02-06T14:30:00.113Z"
}