The misunderstood relationship between originalism and popular sovereignty

Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 485-491

  Prakash, Saikrishna B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 46049107714     PISSN: 01934872     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. ROBERT H. BORK, THE TEMPTING OF AMERICA: THE POLITICAL SEDUCTION OF THE LAW (1990).
2. See, e.g., PAUL W. KAHN, LEGITIMACY AND HISTORY: SELF-GOVERNMENT IN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY 63-64 (1992).
3. Id.
4. See, e.g., KEITH E. WHITTINGTON, CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION: TEXTUAL MEANING, ORIGINAL INTENT, AND JUDICIAL REVIEW 3 (1999).
5. For a discussion of the relationship between originalism and popular sovereignty, see JOHNATHAN O'NEILL, ORIGINALISM IN AMERICAN LAW AND POLITICS: A CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 190-91 (2005).
6. Kurt T. Lash, Originalism, Popular Sovereignty, and Reverse Stare Decisis, 93 VA. L. REV. 1437, 1440 (2007).
7. See KAHN, supra note 2, at 63.
8. For a discussion of these differences, see Randy Barnett, An Originalism for Nonoriginalists, 45 LOY. L. REV. 611 (1999).
9. See, e.g., Altman v. City of High Point, N.C., 330 F.3d 194, 201 (4th Cir. 2003) (opinion of Luttig, J.).
10. See, e.g., Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 346-47 (1999) (Scalia, J., concurring) (citing dictionaries "roughly contemporaneous with the ratification of the Constitution" to determine the original meaning of "enumeration" in Article I of the Constitution); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 585-87 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring) (citing dictionaries from the Founding era, Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention, The Federalist, and the ratification debates to define the meaning of "commerce" in the Commerce Clause); see also Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 686-87 (2005) (plurality opinion) (discussing the meaning of the Establishment Clause by referencing President Washington's Thanksgiving Day Proclamation).
11. See, e.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 590-91 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring); Steven G. Calabresi, The Originalist and Normative Case against Judicial Activism: A Reply to Professor Randy Barnett, 103 MICH. L. REV. 1081, 1084 (2005);
12. Grant S. Nelson & Robert J. Pushaw, Jr., Rethinking the Commerce Clause: Applying First Principles to Uphold Federal Commercial Regulations but Preserve State Control Over Social Issues, 85 IOWA L. REV. 1, 16 (1999).
13. THE FEDERALIST No. 10 (James Madison).
14. In colonial America and during the early history of the United States, the franchise was restricted to white adult males. At one time or another, all of the colonies also restricted voting to Protestant Christians, and property restrictions further limited the size of the potential electorate. Scholars estimate that anywhere from 50 to 80 percent of adult white males were eligible to vote in the colonial period. Because adult white males made up 20 percent of the population as a whole, only 10 to 16 percent of the whole population might have been eligible to vote on the eve of the Revolution. Christopher Collier, The American People as Christian White Men of Property: Suffrage and Elections in Colonial and Early National America, in VOTING AND THE SPIRIT OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: ESSAYS ON THE HISTORY OF VOTING AND VOTING RIGHTS IN AMERICA 19, 20-25 (Donald W. Rogers ed., 1992).
15. See WHITTINGTON, supra note 4, at 130.
16. See RANDY E. BARNETT, RESTORTNG THE LOST CONSTITUTION: THE PRESUMPTION OF LIBERTY 3-5 (2004) (arguing that the Constitution is legitimate because it contains adequate procedures to protect "natural rights").
17. See WHITTINGTON, supra note 4, at 111.