Andre De Luc in his article, Competing Accounts of Interpretation and Practical Reasoning in the Debate over Originalism, argues that to make progress in constitutional interpretation, academia needs to move away from the originalism debate. As an example of the fruitlessness of said debate, he points to the constitution’s instructions for impeachment. Bizarrely, in the impeachment of a vice president, the vice president himself, as the head of the Senate, would preside over his own trial. De Luc claims that such odd results come from an overly strict interpretation of the constitution, and that the focus on originalism has stopped academics from exploring alternative, more flexible options for interpretation.