Originalism, conservatism, and judicial restraint

Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 137-146

  Strauss, David A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80055063252     PISSN: 01934872     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Paul Gewirtz & Chad Golder, So Who Are the Activists?, N. Y. TIMES, July 6, 2005, at A19 ("[T]he word 'activist' is rarely defined. Often it simply means that the judge makes decisions with which the critic disagrees.").
2. See, e.g., Antonin Scalia, Originalism: The Lesser Evil, 57 U. CIN. L. REV. 849, 856-57 (1989) (discussing how to apply originalism).
3. See David A. Strauss, Why Conservatives Shouldn't Be Originalists, 31 HARV. J. L. & PUB. POL'Y 969, 969 (2008) (arguing that "conservatives [should] abandon their allegiance to originalism and instead adopt an approach to constitutional interpretation that is based in precedent").
4. Thomas W. Merrill, Originalism, Stare Decisis and the Promotion of Judicial Restraint, 22 CONST. COMMENT. 271, 273 (2005) ("Judicial restraint is generally thought to be a conservative value, yet most conservative constitutional law scholars today seem to favor a weak theory of precedent.").
5. See, e.g., BARRY GOLDWATER, THE CONSCIENCE OF A CONSERVATIVE 6 (1960) ("The Conservative approach is nothing more or less than an attempt to apply the wisdom and experience and the revealed truths of the past to the problems of today.").
6. See, e.g., Gary Lawson, The Constitutional Case Against Precedent, 17 HARV. J. L. & PUB. POL'Y 23 (1994); (Pubitemid 24835509)
7. Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Intrinsically Corrupting Influence of Precedent, 22 CONST. COMMENT. 289 (2005).
8. See, e.g., Richard L. Aynes, The 39th Congress (1865-1867) and the 14th Amendment: Some Preliminary Perspectives, 42 AKRON L. REV. 1019, 1019 (2009) ("The 14th Amendment is the basis of more litigation than all the other provisions of the Constitution. ").
9. William W. Fisher III, Texts and Contexts: The Application to American Legal History of the Methodologies of Intellectual History, 49 STAN. L. REV. 1065, 1067 (1997) ("[D]isputes over [intellectual historical methodologies] are sharper now than ever."). (Pubitemid 127436892)
10. See U. S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl. 1;
11. Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346, 356 (1911) ("[T]he exercise of the judicial power is limited to 'cases' and 'controversies.' Beyond this it does not extend, and unless it is asserted in a case or controversy within the meaning of the Constitution, the power to exercise it is nowhere conferred.").
12. See e.g., Michael B. Rappaport, The Original Meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause, 52 UCLA L. REV. 1487, 1493-95 (2005) (directing originalists to refer to eighteenth-century newspapers, dictionaries, judicial opinions, and the like when interpreting a constitutional clause enacted in the late 1780s).
13. see also William J. Brennan, Jr., The Constitution of the United States: Contemporary Ratification, 27 S. TEX. L. REV. 433, 438 (1986) ("What the constitutional fundamentals meant to the wisdom of other times cannot be the measure to the vision of our time. Similarly, what those fundamentals mean for us, our descendants will learn, cannot be the measure to the vision of their time.").
14. See Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495, 501-02 (1952).
15. U. S. CONST. amend. IV.
16. See, e.g., Steven G. Calabresi, The Tradition of the Written Constitution: Text, Precedent, and Burke, 57 ALA. L. REV. 635 (2006).
17. DAVID A. STRAUSS, THE LIVING CONSTITUTION 23 (2010).
18. See, e.g., United States v. Comstock, 130 S. Ct. 1949, 1956 (2010) (reaffirming that the Necessary and Proper Clause grants legislative authority to implement a statute when it "constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power").
19. Compare McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U. S. 334, 358 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment) (determining, after an originalist analysis, that an Ohio election law was inconsistent with the First Amendment)
20. See Randy E. Barnett, Trumping Precedent with Original Meaning: Not as Radical as It Sounds, 22 CONST. COMMENT. 257, 263-66 (2005).
21. See David A. Strauss, The Death of Judicial Conservatism, 4 DUKE J. CONST. L. & PUB. POL'Y 1, 3-4 (2009).
22. See, e.g., Bruce Ackerman, The Living Constitution, 120 HARV. L. REV. 1737, 1754 (2007) (describing how Justice Scalia is engaged in an "effort... to challenge the very notion of a living Constitution");
23. JAMES B. STAAB, THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: A HAMILTONIAN ON THE SUPREME COURT 324 (2006) (labeling Scalia the Court's "counterrevolutionary" because he seeks to return the law to original principles and to "overturn many of the decisions of the Warren and Burger Courts").
24. See, e.g., Edwin Meese III, U. S. Att'y Gen., Speech before the American Bar Association (July 9, 1985), available at http://www.fed-soc.org/resources/ id49/default/asp.
25. See SANFORD LEVINSON, CONSTITUTIONAL FAITH (1988).
26. See, e.g., McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010) (holding that the Second Amendment's individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right incorporated against state and local governments);
27. Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 886 (2010) (reversing the Court's earlier prohibition on the use of corporations' treasuries to make political expenditures as a violation of the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause);
28. Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U. S. 701, 748 (2007) (holding that a racially informed school admissions system is unconstitutional);
29. Gonzalez v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124, 168 (2007) (upholding the federal ban on partial birth abortion);
30. United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 551 (1995) (holding that the Gun-Free School Zones Act is an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce).
31. See, e.g., Martha Neil, Progressive Originalism: 'Way More Liberal Than Conservative, 'A. B. A. J. ONLINE (Mar. 16, 2009), http://www.abajournal.com/ news/article/progressive-originalism-way-more-liberal-than-conservative/.
32. See Jeffrey Rosen, Alito Vs. Roberts, Word by Word, N. Y. TIMES, Jan. 15, 2006 § 4 (Week in Review), at 1, 3 (quoting Chief Justice Roberts as saying he "ha[s] no overarching judicial philosophy");
33. Nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 465 (2006) ("[The Framers] didn't purport to adopt a detailed code.... [T]hey left it for the courts [and] the legislative body... to apply that principle to the new situations that come up. ").
34. Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 898-99 (declaring unconstitutional, under the First Amendment, certain restrictions on corporate funding of political broadcasts).
35. For a synopsis of progressive originalism, see Jess Bravin, Rethinking Original Intent, WALL ST. J., Mar. 14, 2009, at W3.
36. See also Jennifer Bradley & Doug Kendall, Constitutional Craving: At long last, Democrats are finally trying to reclaim the Constitution., THE NEW REPUBLIC ONLINE (Dec. 24, 2007, 12:00 AM), http://www/tnr.com/article/politics/ constitutional-craving;
37. Douglas T. Kendall & James E. Ryan, Liberal Reading, THE NEW REPUBLIC, Aug. 6, 2007, at 14.