Stay Tuned with Preet Who Gets To Rewrite History? (with Jill Lepore)
24 snips
Dec 11, 2025 
Jill Lepore, a Harvard professor and New Yorker writer, delves into the malleability of constitutional history. She advocates for easier amendments and critiques the selective use of historical evidence by originalist judges. The discussion explores how societal consensus, rather than just legal rulings, shapes rights and controversies. Lepore also highlights her Amendments Project and shares thoughts on the complexities surrounding issues like Prohibition and civic engagement. Intriguing insights on the intersection of history and law make this conversation a must-listen!
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Law’s Use Of History Differs From Historians’ Method
- Legal precedent uses past decisions as tools, but legal reasoning differs from historical methods in goals and discipline.
- Jill Lepore warns courts' selective history often reads as advocacy rather than faithful historical analysis.
Originalism Isn’t Truly Original
- Originalism claims fidelity to the framers but is neither original nor exclusive historically.
- Lepore traces modern originalism's rise post-1950s and its limits using Brown v. Board as a counterexample.
Perceived Nonnegotiable Rights Freeze Debate
- Many Americans treat contested policies as beyond debate, freezing political change.
- Lepore cites research showing a high share view some issues as outside reasonable debate, which polarizes democracy.
