In an essay for Public Discourse, Josh Hammer addresses John Grove's critique of common-good originalism, arguing that, when Constitutional language is vague, the moral principles of America's founding become useful interpretive tools.

Some excerpts from the piece:

"It is first worth noting that Grove and I agree on more than he seems to realize. In the essay, Grove repeatedly emphasizes that ours is a 'compromise constitution' that 'emerged from a negotiated consensus,' such that we ultimately 'have few guides' in interpretation other than 'the text [all relevant bodies] ratified.' I concur in this general reading of the relevant history. However, in my view, that history cuts in precisely the opposite direction of the one Grove seems to think it does."

"The key question is what an interpreter ought to do when he is faced with a text that admits of multiple plausible originalist interpretations. Positivist/historicist originalists tend to answer this question in at least one of two non-mutually exclusive ways. Some resist my Burkean appeal to interpretive humility, arguing on the contrary that we now possess the linguistic research tools that enable us to ascertain a clause’s 'one, true, authentic historical meaning.' Others—such as Grove, it seems, and perhaps also Ed Whelan—forthrightly acknowledge the difficulties presented by the abstract phrasing and sweeping language of certain constitutional provisions, but maintain nonetheless that the only legitimate approach is to eschew all non-historicist considerations and simply do one’s exegetical 'best' to determine the historically 'right' answer."

"Grove...presents a straw-man version of my stance on the nature of the Preamble. He writes that I suggest that the Constitution is 'defined by… an ideal' of 'discretionary, common good-oriented statesmanship.' A more accurate description would be that I believe the constitutional text is necessarily oriented toward certain substantive ideals of natural justice, human flourishing, and the common good, and that the Preamble serves as a particularly clear and compelling citation to ground that claim."

"Furthermore, my stance is not that 'a small, likeminded cadre of Founders' steered the entire direction of the Convention. Rather, I argue that the very 'compromise' nature of the Constitution imbues some of the text with a degree of interpretive uncertainty, thus sometimes necessitating an appeal to something else for guidance."

Read the rest of the essay here.