Text 1: Legal theorist Dr. Anna Black defends constitutional textualism. "Judges should apply the text's public meaning at ratification," Black argues. "Words meant what they meant when written. Changing meaning usurps the amendment process."
Text 2: Constitutional scholar Dr. David Wells notes textual indeterminacy. "Contested terms like 'equal protection' and 'due process' were indeterminate at ratification," Wells observes. "Original meaning doesn't determine hard cases—the text was designed to be interpreted. Textualism can't escape interpretation."
What limitation of Black's textualism does Wells identify?
That constitutions don't contain text
That original meaning of key terms was itself indeterminate
That amendments are impossible
That interpretation never occurs
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Black assumes original meaning determines cases. Wells notes key terms were "indeterminate at ratification"—there's no fixed meaning to recover. Original meaning can't decide when original meaning was contested.
- Evidence: Wells: contested terms "were indeterminate at ratification."
- Reasoning: If meaning was open, original meaning doesn't decide.
- Conclusion: Text's own indeterminacy limits textualist method.
Choice A is incorrect because Wells discusses constitutional text. Choice C is incorrect because Black discusses amendments. Choice D is incorrect because Wells says interpretation was "designed."