Laying claim to the constitution: The promise of new textualism

Virginia Law Review

Volumn 97, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 1523-1572

  Ryan, James E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855867696     PISSN: 00426601     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (134)

1. See, e.g., Robert H. Bork, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 Ind. L.J. 1 (1971);
2. Robert H. Bork, The Constitution, Original Intent, and Economic Rights, 23 San Diego L. Rev. 823 (1986) [hereinafter Bork, Original Intent];
3. see also Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment 1-10 (1977).
4. See, e.g., Paul Brest, The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding, 60 B.U. L. Rev. 204 (1980).
5. See generally Ethan J. Leib, The Perpetual Anxiety of Living Constitutionalism, 24 Const. Comment. 353 (2007).
6. H. Jefferson Powell, The Original Understanding of Original Intent, 98 Harv. L. Rev. 885, 902-13, 948 (1985).
7. See, e.g., Robert H. Bork, Styles in Constitutional Theory, 26 S. Tex. L.J. 383, 387- 88 (1985).
8. See, e.g., Antonin Scalia, Originalism: The Lesser Evil, 57 U. Cin. L. Rev. 849, 855 (1989).
9. See generally Keith E. Whittington, The New Originalism, 2 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 599, 599-600, 607-12 (2004).
10. See, e.g., Michael C. Dorf, Integrating Normative and Descriptive Constitutional Theory: The Case of Original Meaning, 85 Geo. L.J. 1765, 1766 (1997).
11. See, e.g., Akhil Reed Amar, Foreword: The Document and the Doctrine, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 26, 28-29 (2000);
12. Jack M. Balkin, Abortion and Original Meaning, 24 Const. Comment. 291, 293 (2007).
13. See generally Jack M. Balkin, Original Meaning and Constitutional Redemption, 24 Const. Comment. 427 (2007);
14. Thomas B. Colby & Peter J. Smith, Living Originalism, 59 Duke L.J. 239 (2009).
15. Some still do. See, e.g., Christopher Jon Sprigman, First Do No Harm: Why Judges Should Butt Out of the Fight Over Health Care Reform, Slate (Feb. 11, 2001, 5:21 PM), http://www.slate.com/id/2284664
16. See, e.g., Akhil Reed Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography (2005);
17. See, e.g., Akhil Reed Amar, Rethinking Originalism: Original Intent for Liberals (and for Conservatives and Moderates, Too), Slate (Sept. 21, 2005, 12:36 PM), http://www.slate.com/articles/news-and-politics/jurisprudence/2005/ 09/rethinking-originalism.html;
18. Elizabeth Wydra & David Gans, Constitutional Accountability Center, Setting the Record Straight: The Tea Party and the Constitutional Powers of the Federal Government (July 16, 2010), http://www.theusconstitution.org/upload/fck/ file/File-storage/Setting%20the%20Record%20Straight%20Issue%20Brief%20formatted. pdf.
19. Nominations of William H. Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell, Jr.: Hearings Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 92d Cong. 55 (1971) (statement of William H. Rehnquist).
20. Edwin Meese, III, The Supreme Court of the United States: Bulwark of a Limited Constitution, 27 S. Tex. L. Rev. 455, 465-66 (1986)
21. see also Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Original Meaning Jurisprudence: A Sourcebook 14 (1987).
22. Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law 144-49 (1997)
23. See Mitchell N. Berman, Originalism and Its Discontents (Plus a Thought or Two About Abortion), 24 Const. Comment. 383, 386 (2007) (noting that "much of Scalia's writing ⋯ does appear to endorse and rely upon the expectation originalism that he purports to reject").
24. For the most thorough and erudite explication of the semantic originalism, see generally Lawrence B. Solum, Semantic Originalism (Ill. Pub. Law & Legal Theory, Research Paper No. 07-24, 2008), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1120244.
25. 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
26. 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
27. See James E. Ryan, Does It Take a Theory? Originalism, Active Liberty, and Minimalism, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 1623, 1659-60 (2006)
28. Cass R. Sunstein, Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America (2005)).
29. See, e.g., Ira C. Lupu, Employment Division v. Smith and the Decline of Supreme Court-Centrism, 1993 BYU L. Rev. 259, 260;
30. Gene R. Nichol, Justice Scalia and the Printz Case: The Trials of an Occasional Originalist, 70 U. Colo. L. Rev. 953, 969-71 (1999);
31. Eric J. Segall, A Century Lost: The End of the Originalism Debate, 15 Const. Comment. 411, 427-28 (1998);
32. see also Philip Bobbitt, Constitutional Interpretation 101 (1991) (claiming that Bork "insists on 100% original understanding, 20% of the time").
33. See, e.g., Thomas M. Keck, The Most Activist Supreme Court in History: The Road to Modern Judicial Conservatism 251 (2004).
34. Dawn Johnsen, Lessons from the Right: Progressive Constitutionalism for the Twenty-first Century, 1 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 239, 241 (2007).
35. see also Dawn Johnsen, The Progressive Political Power of Balkin's "Original Meaning," 24 Const. Comment. 417, 417-21 (2007).
36. Caleb Nelson, Originalism and Interpretive Conventions, 70 U. Chi. L. Rev. 519, 543-44 (2003)
37. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (2006).
38. 523 U.S. 75 (1998).
39. The Originalist, California Lawyer (Jan. 2011), http://www.callawyer.com/ story.cfm?pubdt=NaN&eid=913358&evid=1.
40. Lawrence Lessig, Fidelity in Translation, 71 Tex. L. Rev. 1165, 1165 (1993);
41. Lawrence Lessig, Understanding Changed Readings: Fidelity and Theory, 47 Stan. L. Rev. 395, 395 (1995).
42. For recent work along the same lines, see, for example, Goodwin Liu, Pamela S. Karlan & Christopher H. Schroeder, Keeping Faith with the Constitution (2010).
43. See, e.g., Michael J. Klarman, Antifidelity, 70 S. Cal. L. Rev. 381, 408-09 (1997).
44. see also Michael W. McConnell, The Importance of Humility in Judicial Review: A Comment on Ronald Dworkin's "Moral Reading" of the Constitution, 65 Fordham L. Rev. 1269, 1280 (1997) (arguing that the interpreter should "seek the level of generality at which the particular language was understood by its Framers").
45. See, e.g., Randy Barnett, Interpretation and Construction, 34 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 65, 69 (2011);
46. Lawrence B. Solum, Semantic Originalism (Ill. Pub. Law, Research Paper No. 07-24, 2008), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1120244.
47. See Jack M. Balkin, Framework Originalism and the Living Constitution, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 549, 569-75 (2009);
48. Kermit Roosevelt, Justice Scalia's Constitution-And Ours, 8 U. Pa. J. L. & Soc. Change 27, 32 (2005).
49. See, e.g., Keith E. Whittington, Constitutional Construction: Divided Powers and Constitutional Meaning 8-9 (1999);
50. Keith E. Whittington, Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review 7 (1999).
51. See generally Peter J. Smith, How Different Are Originalism and Non-Originalism?, 62 Hastings L.J. 707 (2011).
52. Jack M. Balkin, Commerce, 109 Mich. L. Rev. 1 (2010);
53. Jack M. Balkin, The Reconstruction Power, 85 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1801 (2010)
54. See, e.g., Steven G. Calabresi & Livia Fine, Two Cheers for Professor Balkin's Originalism, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 663 (2009).
55. 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
56. Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction (1998);
57. Akhil Reed Amar, Intratextualism, 112 Harv. L. Rev. 747 (1999);
58. Akhil Reed Amar, Of Sovereignty and Federalism, 96 Yale L.J. 1425 (1987).
59. See, e.g., Kate Zernike, On Day Devoted to Constitution, Fight Over It, N.Y. Times, Sept. 15, 2011, at A13 (describing views of Tea Party and its critics);
60. See David Gans, Antonin Scalia-The Tea Party's Court Justice, Huffington Post (Nov. 16, 2010), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-gans/antonin-scalia- justicefr-b-784428.html.
61. See Robert Barnes, Gun Case Presents Quandary for Court, Wash. Post, Mar. 1, 2010, at A1.
62. Michael Stokes Paulsen, How to Interpret the Constitution (and How Not to), 115 Yale L.J. 2037, 2037, 2040 (2006).
63. William N. Eskridge, Jr., The New Textualism, 37 UCLA L. Rev. 621, 623 (1990).
64. See, e.g., Dahlia Lithwich, Justice Grover versus Justice Oscar: Scalia and Breyer Sell Very Different Constitutional Worldviews, Slate (Dec. 6, 2006, 4:31 PM), http://www.slate.com/id/2154993/(quoting Justice Scalia).
65. Reva B. Siegel, She the People: The Nineteenth Amendment, Sex Equality, Federalism, and the Family, 115 Harv. L. Rev. 947 (2002).
66. 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
67. See, e.g., Steven D. Smith, Reply to Koppelman: Originalism and the (Merely) Human Constitution, 27 Const. Comment. 189, 197 (2010).
68. See, e.g., David Strauss, The Living Constitution (2010);
69. Cass R. Sunstein, Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America (2005);
70. Robert Post & Reva Siegel, How Liberals Need to Approach Constitutional Theory, The New Republic, Sept. 18, 2007, at 14;
71. Geoffrey R. Stone, Op-Ed, Our Fill-in-the- Blank Constitution, N.Y. Times, Apr. 14, 2010, at A27.
72. See, e.g., Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law 144 (1990) ("The search is not for subjective intention⋯ . When lawmakers use words, the law that results is what those words ordinarily mean.").
73. See David A. Strauss, Common Law Constitutional Interpretation, 63 U. Chi. L. Rev. 877 (1996). (Pubitemid 126408724) (Pubitemid 126408724)
74. Stanley Fish, Why Bother with the Constitution?, N.Y. Times Blog (May 10, 2010), http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/why-bother-with-the- constitution.
75. 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
76. See Charles Black, The Lawfulness of the Segregation Decisions, 69 Yale L.J. 421 (1960).
77. For reports of relevant polling and discussion of public attitudes towards orginalism- which bolster the point that Americans care about more than just results, see, for example, Jamal Greene, Selling Originalism, 97 Geo. L.J. 657 (2009);
78. Jamal Greene, Nathaniel Persily & Stephen Ansolabehere, Profiling Orginialism, 111 Colum. L. Rev. 356 (2011).
79. See, e.g., Richard H. Fallon, Jr., The Political Function of Originalist Ambiguity, 19 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 487, 488 (1996)
80. 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
81. Jill E. Hasday, Federalism and the Family Reconstructed, 45 UCLA L. Rev. 1297 (1998).
82. Evan Caminker, "Appropriate" Means-Ends Constraints on Section 5 Powers, 53 Stan. L. Rev. 1127 (2001); (Pubitemid 33648736) (Pubitemid 33648736)
83. Paul Finkelman, John Bingham and the Background to the Fourteenth Amendment, 36 Akron L. Rev. 671 (2003);
84. Michael Gerhardt, The Ripple Effects of Slaughter-House: A Critique of the Negative Rights View of the Constitution, 43 Vand. L. Rev. 409 (1990);
85. Steven J. Heyman, The First Duty of Government: Protection, Liberty and the Fourteenth Amendment, 41 Duke L.J. 507 (1991);
86. Robert Kaczorowski, The Supreme Court and Congress's Power to Enforce Constitutional Rights: An Overlooked Moral Anomaly, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 153 (2004);
87. Douglas Laycock, Conceptual Gulfs in City of Boerne v. Flores, 39 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 743 (1998);
88. Michael W. McConnell, Institutions and Interpretation: A Critique of City of Boerne v. Flores, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 153 (1997);
89. Rebecca Zietlow, Congressional Enforcement of Civil Rights and John Bingham's Theory of Citizenship, 36 Akron L. Rev. 717 (2003).
90. 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819).
91. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).
92. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
93. See Zephyr Teachout, The Anti-Corruption Principle, 94 Cornell L. Rev. 341 (2009).
94. See Adam Winkler, Corporate Personhood and the Rights of Corporate Speech, 30 Seattle U. L. Rev. 863 (2007)
95. Adam Winkler, "Other People's Money": Corporations, Agency Costs, and Campaign Finance Law, 92 Geo. L. Rev. 871 (2004).
96. Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 50 (2010).
97. Neal Katyal, Equality in the War on Terror, 59 Stan. L. Rev. 1365 (2007).
98. James Pfander & Theresa Wardon, Reclaiming the Immigration Constitution of the Early Republic: Prospectivity, Uniformity & Transparency, 96 Va. L. Rev. 359, 413-41 (2010).
99. James Pfander, Federal Supremacy, State Court Inferiority, and the Constitutionality of Jurisdiction-Stripping Legislation, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 191, 198-200 (2007).
100. Caleb Nelson, Preemption, 86 Va. L. Rev. 225 (2000).
101. See Julian David Mortenson, Executive Power and the Discipline of History, 78 U. Chi. L. Rev. 377 (2011).
102. Important work on the limits of executive power over military campaigns also includes David J. Barron & Martin S. Lederman, The Commander in Chief at the Lowest Ebb-Framing the Problem, Doctrine, and Original Understanding, 121 Harv. L. Rev. 689 (2008).
103. See, e.g., Daniel Farber, Retained by the People (2007);
104. Richard Aynes, Ink Blot or Not: The Meaning of Privileges and/or Immunities, 11 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1295 (2009);
105. Michael Kent Curtis, Historical Linguistics, Inkblots, and Life After Death: The Privileges or Immunities of Citizens of the United States, 78 N.C. L. Rev. 1071 (2000);
106. Michael Anthony Lawrence, Second Amendment Incorporation Through the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities and Due Process Clauses, 72 Mo. L. Rev. 1 (2007);
107. Bryan Wildenthal, Nationalizing the Bill of Rights: Revisiting the Original Understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866-67, 68 Ohio St. L.J. 1509 (2007).
108. Randy Barnett, The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 1 (2006).
109. See, e.g., John Hart Ely, The Oxymoron Reconsidered: Myth and Reality in the Origins of Substantive Due Process, 16 Const. Comment. 315, 326-27 (1999)
110. Frederick Mark Gedicks, An Originalist Defense of Substantive Due Process: Magna Carta, Higher-Law Constitutionalism, and the Fifth Amendment, 58 Emory L.J. 585, 594 (2009)
111. Earl M. Maltz, Fourteenth Amendment Concepts in the Antebellum Era, 32 Am. J. Legal Hist. 305, 317 (1988)
112. Laurence H. Tribe, Taking Text and Structure Seriously: Reflections on Free-Form Method in Constitutional Interpretation, 108 Harv. L. Rev. 1221, 1297 n.247 (1995)
113. Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law 166 (1990).
114. This scholarship features prominently in the majority and dissenting opinions in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010).
115. See, e.g., Robert H. Churchill, Gun Regulation, The Police Power, and the Right to Keep Arms in Early America: The Legal Context of the Second Amendment, 25 Law & Hist. Rev. 139 (2007);
116. Saul Cornell, Early American Gun Regulation and the Second Amendment: A Closer Look at the Evidence, 25 Law & Hist. Rev. 197 (2007);
117. Carole Emberton, The Limits of Incorporation: Violence, Gun Rights, and Gun Regulation in the Reconstruction South, 17 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 615, 621-22 (2006);
118. Adam Winkler, Scrutinizing the Second Amendment, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 683 (2007).
119. Gabriel Chin, Reconstruction, Felon Disenfranchisement, and the Right to Vote: Did the Fifteenth Amendment Repeal Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment?, 92 Geo. L.J. 259 (2004).
120. Christina Rodriguez, The Citizenship Clause, Original Meaning, and the Egalitarian Unity of the Fourteenth Amendment, 11 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1363 (2009);
121. see also Garrett Epps, The Citizenship Clause: A "Legislative History," 60 Am. U. L. Rev. 331, 339 (2010)
122. 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
123. H. Jefferson Powell, The Lawfulness of Romer v. Evans, 77 N.C. L. Rev. 241 (1998).
124. James Gray Pope, Contract, Race, and Freedom of Labor in the Constitutional Law of "Involuntary Servitude," 119 Yale L.J. 1474 (2010);
125. see also Risa L. Goluboff, The Lost Promise of Civil Rights (2007).
126. Goodwin Liu, Education, Equality, and National Citizenship, 116 Yale L.J. 330 (2006).
127. Melissa Saunders, Equal Protection, Class Legislation, and Colorblindness, 96 Mich. L. Rev. 245 (1997).
128. Older work on this topic includes Eric Schnapper, Affirmative Action and the Legislative History of the Fourteenth Amendment, 71 Va. L. Rev. 753 (1985).
129. Kurt Lash, The Second Adoption of the Establishment Clause: The Rise of the Nonestablishment Principle, 27 Ariz. St. L.J. 1085 (1995)
130. Kurt Lash, The Second Adoption of the Free Exercise Clause: Religious Exemptions Under the Fourteenth Amendment, 88 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1106 (1994)
131. For a perfect example of this perspective, see Adrian Vermuele's condescending essay, Adrian Vermuele, Living It Up, The New Republic (Aug. 2, 2010, 12:00 AM), http://www.tnr.com/book/review/living-it.
132. John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust, A Theory of Judicial Review (1980).
133. See Kermit Roosevelt III, The Myth of Judicial Activism (2006);
134. Kermit Roosevelt III, Constitutional Calcification: How the Law Becomes What the Court Does, 91 Va. L. Rev. 1649 (2005).