The American constitution and the debate over originalism

The American Constitution and the Debate Over Originalism

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 1-305

  Goldford, Dennis J ^a  

^a DRAKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925075968     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511756214     Document Type: Book

References (379)

1. G.W. F. Hegel, The Phenomenology of Mind, trans. J. B. Baillie (NewYork: Harper Torchbooks, 1967), 92
2. “Das Bekannte uberhaupt is darum, weil es bekannt ist, nicht erkannt.” Phanomenologie des Geistes (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1952), 28.
3. Earl Maltz, “Forward: The Appeal of Originalism,” 1987 Utah Law Review 773, 773.
4. Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990)
5. Ethan Bronner, Battle for Justice: How the Bork Nomination Shook America (New York: W. W. Norton and company, 1989)
6. Patrick B. McGuigan and Dawn M. Weyrich, Ninth Justice: The Fight for Bork (Washington, DC: Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, 1990).
7. Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, ed. Amy Gutmann (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997).
8. “Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution,” 19 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 237–531 (1996);
9. “Fidelity in Constitutional Theory,” 65 Fordham Law Review 1247–1818 (1997);
10. “Textualism and the Constitution,” 66 George Washington Law Review 1081–1394 (1998).
11. “Law and Truth: The Twenty-First Annual National Student Federalist Society Symposium on Law and Public Policy,” 26 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy vii–x, 1–237 (2003), at 67–107.
12. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (New York: Vintage Books, 1990), Vol. 1, 280
13. Theodore H. White, The Making of the President, 1968 (New York: Atheneum Publishers, 1969)
14. Gary McDowell, “Introduction,” in Gary L. McDowell, ed., Politics and the Constitution: The Nature and Extent of Interpretation (Washington, DC: National Legal Center for the Public Interest and The American Studies Center, 1990), 11
15. “Judicial Review and a Written Constitution in a Democratic Society,” 28 Wayne Law Review 1 (1981)
16. Paul G. Cassell, ed., The Great Debate: Interpreting Our Written Constitution [Washington, DC: The Federalist Society, 1986], 9
17. Michael J. Perry, The Constitution, the Courts, and Human Rights [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982], 2
18. Mark Tushnet, Taking the ConstitutionAway from the Courts (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999)
19. Cass Sunstein, One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
20. Sanford Levinson, “Law as Literature,” 60 Texas Law Review 373, 376 (1982).
21. “The Sedimentary Constitution,” 147 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1, 65 (1998).
22. Walter Berns, Taking the Constitution Seriously (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987), 236
23. Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977), 252
24. “Originalist Theories of Constitutional Interpretation,” 73 Cornell Law Review 350, 353 (1988)
25. “The Sedimentary Constitution,” 147 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1, 6 (1998)
26. “The Legitimacy of Particular Conceptions of Constitutional Interpretation,” 77 Virginia Law Review 669, 673 (1991).
27. Eric J. Segall, “A Century Lost: The End of the Originalism Debate,” 15 Constitutional Commentary 411 (1998).
28. Aileen Kavanagh, “Original Intention, Enacted Text, and Constitutional Interpretation,” 47 American Journal of Jurisprudence 255, 3 (2002)
29. “Originalist Theories of Constitutional Interpretation,” 73 Cornell Law Review 350, 350–1 (1988)
30. Christopher Wolfe, The Rise of Modern Judicial Review (New York: Basic Books, 1986), 34
31. “A Hermeneutical Critique of the Originalism/Nonoriginalism Distinction,” 15 NorthernKentucky Law Review 479, 480–1 (1988)
32. Richard A. Posner, “Against Constitutional Theory,” 73 New York University Law Review 1, 1 (1998)
33. Todd Gitlin, “Straight from the Sixties: What Conservatives Owe the Decade They Hate,” The American Prospect (May–June 1996), 54–9.
34. Samuel Huntington, “Chapter III: The United States,” in Michel J. Crozier, Samuel Huntington, and Joji Watanuki, eds., The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission (New York: New York University Press, 1975);
35. James Davison Hunter, CultureWars: The Struggle to Define America (New York: Basic Books, 1991), 49
36. William J. Bennett, The De-Valuing of America: The Fight for Our Culture and Our Children (New York: Summit Books, 1992).
37. Theodore H. White, The Making of the President, 1968 (New York: Atheneum Publishers, 1969), 34.
38. Hunter, CultureWars, 49.
39. Jeffrey Bell “The acquittal of Bill Clinton is a stinging setback for conservatives in the values war that has been going on in one form or another since the 1960s.” The Weekly Standard, February 22, 1999, 12
40. Stanley Kurtz, “Push-Pull,” National Review, March 5, 2001, 32–4
41. Stephen Mulhall and Adam Swift, Liberals and Communitarians (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1992).
42. Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990), 271
43. Bork, The Tempting of America, 242.
44. Paul G. Cassell, ed., The Great Debate: Interpreting Our Written Constitution (Washington, DC: The Federalist Society, 1986), 9.
45. Bork, The Tempting of America, 3.
46. Lino Graglia, “Does Constitutional Law Still Exist?” National Review, June 26, 1995, 34.
47. Cassell, The Great Debate, 14–15.
48. James H. Hutson, “The Creation of the Constitution: The Integrity of the Documentary Record,” 65 Texas Law Review 1 (1986).
49. Ronald Dworkin, “The Forum of Principle,” in Ronald Dworkin, A Matter of Principle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985)
50. Paul Brest, “The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding,” 60 Boston University Law Review 204 (1980).
51. Cassell, The Great Debate, 45.
52. John Hart Ely is to Democracy and Distrust (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), 2
53. Robert Jackson, Board of Education v. Barnette, 319
54. “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems,” 47 Indiana Law Journal 1 (1971).
55. Cassell, The Great Debate, 33
56. Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry, A History of the American Constitution (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1990), 374
57. Michael Perry, Morality, Politics, and Law (Oxford: West Publishing Company, 1988), 123
58. Sotirios Barber, OnWhat the Constitution Means (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984), 45
59. Jed Rubenfeld, “Textualism and Democratic Legitimacy,” 66 GeorgeWashingtonLawReview 1085, 1102–3 (1998).
60. H. Jefferson Powell, “Rules for Originalists,” 73 Virginia Law Review 659, 676 (1987).
61. Raoul Berger, “Originalist Theories of Constitutional Interpretation,” 73 Cornell Law Review 350, 350–1 (1988)
62. Richard Saphire, “Enough About Originalism,” 15 Northern Kentucky Law Review 513, 516 (1988).
63. Cassell, The Great Debate, 45.
64. Bork, “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems,” 47 Indiana Law Journal 1 (1971).
65. Leonard Levy, Original Intent and the Framers’ Constitution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1988), 374.
66. Scott Douglas Gerber, To Secure These Rights: The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation (New York: New York University Press, 1995), 4–5
67. Earl Maltz, “Forward: The Appeal of Originalism,” 1987 Utah Law Review 773
68. Bork, The Tempting of America, 177
69. “Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights? 2 Stanford Law Review 5 (1949)
70. Michael Kent Curtis, No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1986)
71. James Madison, The Federalist Papers, Clinton Rossiter, ed. (New York: New American Library, 1961), No. 37, 229
72. Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, ed. Amy Gutmann (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997), 38.
73. Paul G. Cassell, ed., The Great Debate: Interpreting Our Written Constitution (Washington, DC: The Federalist Society, 1986), 40.
74. Graham Walker, Moral Foundations of Constitutional Thought, in Review of Politics, Vol. 53, No. 4. (Fall 1991), 718
75. “The Meaning of the Bork Nomination in American Constitutional History,” 50 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 655, 657 (1989).
76. Thomas Grey, “Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution?” 27 Stanford Law Review 703, 709 (1975).
77. “The Constitution Is Not ‘Hard Law’: The Bork Rejection and the Future of Constitutional Jurisprudence,” 6 Constitutional Commentary 29, 37 (1989)
78. Archibald Cox, “The Role of the Supreme Court: Judicial Activism or Self-Restraint?” 47 Maryland Law Review 118, 119 (1987).
79. “Constitutional Fiction: An Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation of the Religion Clauses,” 47 Louisiana Law Review 169, 194 (1986).
80. Erwin Chemerinsky, “The Supreme Court, 1988 Term: Forward: The Vanishing Constitution,” 103 Harvard Law Review 43, 92 (1989).
81. Marshall J. Breger, “Introductory Remarks: Conference on Statutory Interpretation: The Role of Legislative History in Judicial Interpretation,” 1987 Duke Law Journal 362, 364 (1987)
82. Gordon Wood, “The Fundamentalists and the Constitution,” New York Review of Books, February 18, 1988, 33–40.
83. Morton J. Horwitz, “The Warren Court and the Pursuit of Justice,” 50 Washington & Lee Law Review 5, 5 (1993)
84. Arthur S. Miller, “The President and Faithful Execution of the Laws,” 40 Vanderbilt Law Review 389, 391 (1987);
85. Daniel Shaviro, “An Economic and Political Look at Federalism in Taxation,” 90 Michigan Law Review 895, 951 (1992)
86. Laura Oren, “The State's Failure to Protect Children and Substantive Due Process: Deshaney in Context,” 68 North Carolina Law Review 659, 689 (1990)
87. Louis Fisher, “Constitutional Interpretation by Members of Congress,” 63 North Carolina Law Review 707, 717 (1985)
88. Abner J. Mikva, “How Well Does Congress Support and Defend the Constitution?” 61 North Carolina Law Review 587, 608 (1983)
89. “The Legitimacy Debate in Constitutional Adjudication: An Assessment and A Different Perspective,” 44 Ohio State Law Journal 93, 107 (1983)
90. “Justices Harlan and Black Revisited: The Emerging Dispute Between Justice O’Connor and Justice Scalia Over Unenumerated Fundamental Rights,” 61 Fordham Law Review 895, 904 (1993)
91. Richard H. Fallon, Jr., “A Constructivist Coherence Theory of Constitutional Interpretation,” 100 Harvard Law Review 1189, 1213–14 (1987)
92. Douglas H. Hsiao, “Invisible Cities: The Constitutional Status of Direct Democracy in a Democratic Republic,” 41 Duke Law Journal 1267, 1303 (1992).
93. Sylvia A. Law, “Abortion Compromise – Inevitable and Impossible,” 1992 University of Illinois Law Review 921, 928 (1992).
94. J. Steven Beckett, “Whatever Happened to the Bill of Rights? A Criminal Defense Lawyer's Perspective,” 1992 University of Illinois Law Review 213, 217 (1992).
95. “Toward a General Theory of the Establishment Clause,” 82 Northwestern University Law Review 1115, 1191 (1988)
96. Jay Schlosser, “The Establishment Clause and Justice Scalia: What the Future Holds for Church and State,” 63 Notre Dame Law Review 380, 387 (1988)
97. Marjorie E. Kornhauser, “The Constitutional Meaning of Income and the Income Taxation of Gifts,” 25 Connecticut Law Review 1, 4. (1992)
98. “Contempt of Congress: A Reply to the Critics of an Absolute Rule of Statutory Stare Decisis,” 88 Michigan Law Review 2467, 2478 (1990)
99. Harold Koh, 41 Duke Law Journal 122, 128 (1991)
100. “Pretense and Our Two Constitutions,” 54 GeorgeWashington Law Review 375, 379 (1986).
101. Arthur Selwyn Miller, The Modern Corporate State: Private Governments and the American Constitution (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1976), 5–6.
102. Richard Epstein, Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), 24
103. Herman Belz, A Living Constitution or Fundamental Law? American Constitutionalism in HistoricalPerspective (Lanham, MD: Rowman&Littlefield Publishers, 1998), 8.
104. “Book Review: Death Penalties: The Supreme Court's Obstacle Course” by Raoul Berger, Reviewed by Gary L. McDowell, 51 GeorgeWashington Law Review 624, 629 (1983)
105. Antonin Scalia, “Originalism: The Lesser Evil,” 57 Cincinnati Law Review 849, 853 (1989).
106. Walter Berns, “DoWe Have a Living Constitution?” National Forum, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Fall 1984), 29
107. Walter Berns, Taking the Constitution Seriously (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987), 236.
108. Miller, The Modern Corporate State, 13.
109. Arthur Selwyn Miller, “Notes on the Concept of the ‘Living’ Constitution,’” 31 GeorgeWashington Law Review 881, 917–18 (1963).
110. William H. Rehnquist, “The Notion of a Living Constitution,” 54 Texas Law Review 693 (1976).
111. Charles A. Reich, “The Living Constitution and the Court's Role,” in Stephen Parks Strickland, ed., Hugo Black and the Supreme Court (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1967), 155.
112. Orrin Hatch, “Book Review: The Dangers of Political Law: The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law, by Robert H. Bork,” 75 Cornell Law Review 1338, 1354 (1990).
113. “The Original Constitution and Our Origins,” 19 Harvard Journal of Law&Public Policy 251, 261 (1996).
114. James Madison, The Federalist Papers, Clinton Rossiter, ed. (New York: New American Library, 1961), No. 37, 229.
115. Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man (New York: Viking Penguin, 1984), 71
116. Berns, Taking the Constitution Seriously, 236.
117. “Constitutional Interpretation as Political Choice,” 48 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 989, 1008 (1987).
118. “The Constitution of Change: Legal Fundamentality without Fundamentalism,” 107 Harvard Law Review 32, 41 (1993).
119. “Dialogue and Judicial Review,” 91 Michigan Law Review 577, 649 (1993)
120. “Constitutional Federalism and Judicial Review: The Role of Textual Analysis,” 62 New York University Law Review 1, 29 (1987)
121. “The Constitution's Accommodation of Social Change,” 88 MichiganLawReview 239, 242–3 (1989).
122. Edwin Meese, “The Law of the Constitution,” 61 Tulane Law Review 979 (1987).
123. Meese, “The Law of the Constitution,” 979, 981
124. Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1923), 460–71.
125. Grey, “DoWe Have an Unwritten Constitution?” 27 Stanford Law Review 703 (1975).
126. Cass R. Sunstein, “Justice Scalia's Democratic Formalism,” 107 Yale Law Journal 529 (1997)
127. Reuben A. Brower, ed., On Translation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 3.
128. Hoy, “A Hermeneutical Critique of the Originalism/Nonoriginalism Distinction,” 491.
129. Paul Brest, “The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding,” 60 Boston University Law Review 204, 204 (1980).
130. H. Jefferson Powell, “Rules for Originalists,” 73 Virginia Law Review 659, 676 (1987)
131. Raoul Berger, “Originalist Theories of Constitutional Interpretation,” 73 Cornell Law Review 350, 350–1 (1988)
132. Richard Saphire, “Enough about Originalism,” 15 Northern Kentucky Law Review 513, 516 (1988).
133. Cass Sunstein, “Five Theses on Originalism,” 19 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 311 (1996)
134. The Great Debate: Interpreting Our Written Constitution, ed. Paul G. Cassell (Washington, DC: The Federalist Society, 1986), 37
135. “What Were the ‘Original Intentions’ of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States?,” 10 University of Puget Sound Law Review 351 (1987).
136. Thomas Cooley, A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1868), 55
137. Thomas Grey, “Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution?” 27 Stanford Law Review 703 (1975)
138. Grey, “Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution?” 703
139. John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), 1
140. Grey, “Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution?” 706
141. Michael J. Perry, The Constitution, the Courts, and Human Rights (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982), 10
142. Bork, “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems,” 47 Indiana Law Journal 1 (1971).
143. “Origins of the Unwritten Constitution: Fundamental Law in American Revolutionary Thought,” 30 Stanford Law Review 843, 843 (1978).
144. Leedes, “A Critique of Illegitimate Noninterpretivism,” 8 University of Dayton Law Review 533, 537–8 (1983).
145. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, and Company, 1833), Vol. I, 136
146. Jaffa Original Intent and the Framers of the Constitution: A Disputed Question (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1994).
147. Lino Graglia, “Jaffa's Quarrel with Bork: Religious Belief Masquerading as Constitutional Argument,” 4 Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 705, 708 (1995).
148. Harry Jaffa, “Graglia's Quarrel with God: Atheism and Nihilism Masquerading as Constitutional Argument, 4 Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 715, 716 (1995).
149. “The Struggle Over the Role of the Court,” National Review, September 17, 1982, 1138.
150. Gary Jacobsohn, The Supreme Court and the Decline of Constitutional Aspiration (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1986), 75
151. Earl Maltz, “The Failure of Attacks on Constitutional Originalism,” 4 Constitutional Commentary 43, 44 (1987).
152. Ronald Dworkin, A Matter of Principle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), 35
153. Richard B. Saphire, “Judicial Review in the Name of the Constitution,” 8 University of Dayton Law Review 745, 799 (1983).
154. Thomas Grey, “The Constitution as Scripture,” 37 Stanford Law Review 1, 1 (1984).
155. Brest, “The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding,” 204
156. “Forward: The Appeal of Originalism,” 1987 Utah Law Review 773
157. Christopher Wolfe, Judicial Activism: Bulwark of Freedom or Precarious Security? (Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1991), 3.
158. Christopher Wolfe, The Rise of Modern Judicial Review: From Constitutional Interpretation to Judge-Made Law (New York: Basic Books, 1986), 18–19.
159. The Concept of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 124–5
160. The Federalist Papers, Clinton Rossiter, ed. (New York: New American Library, 1961), 229.
161. Michael J. Perry, “The Authority of Text, Tradition, and Reason: A Theory of Constitutional ‘Interpretation,’” 58 Southern California Law Review 551, 559 (1985).
162. Original Intent and the Constitution (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1992)
163. Henry Monaghan, “Our Perfect Constitution,” 56 New York University Law Review 353, 353 (1981).
164. Rehnquist, “The Notion of a Living Constitution,” 54 Texas Law Review 693, 704 (1976).
165. Scott Douglas Gerber, To Secure These Rights: The Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Interpretation (New York: New York University Press, 1996), 15.
166. Wolfe, The Rise of Modern Judicial Review, 62–3.
167. Jacobsohn, The Supreme Court and the Decline of Constitutional Aspiration, 5.
168. “Originalist Theories of Constitutional Interpretation, 73 Cornell Law Review 350, 350–1 (1988).
169. Cassell, The Great Debate, 52
170. Bork, The Tempting of America, 218
171. Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, ed. Amy Gutmann (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997), 17.
172. Richard S. Kay, “Adherence to the Original Intentions in Constitutional Adjudication: Three Objections and Responses,” 82 Northwestern University Law Review 226, 250 (1988)
173. Gary L. McDowell, “The Politics of Original Intention,” in Robert A. Goldwin and William A. Schambra, eds., The Constitution, the Courts, and the Quest for Justice (Washington: AEI: 1989), 1–2
174. Robert Justin Lipkin, Constitutional Revolutions: Pragmatism and the Role of Judicial Review in American Constitutionalism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000)
175. Jonathan R. Macey, “Originalism as an ‘Ism,’” 19 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 301, 308 (1996).
176. Raoul Berger, “Originalist Theories of Constitutional Interpretation,” 73 Cornell Law Review 350, 353 (1988).
177. Lino A. Graglia, “‘Interpreting’ the Constitution: Posner on Bork,” 44 Stanford Law Review 1019, 1024 (1992)
178. Earl Maltz, “The Failure of Attacks on Constitutional Originalism,” 4 Constitutional Commentary 43, 53 (1987).
179. Robert Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990)
180. Maltz, Rethinking Constitutional Law: Originalism, Interventionism, and the Politics of Judicial Review (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1994), 20.
181. Maltz, Rethinking the Constitution, 20.
182. Robert Bork, “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems,” 47 Indiana Law Journal 1, 2–3 (1971).
183. Walter Murphy, James E. Fleming, and William F. Harris, American Constitutional Interpretation (Mineola, NY: Foundation Press, 1986), 23.
184. J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds., Liberal Democracy (Nomos XXV) (New York: New York University Press, 1983), 123
185. Stephen Macedo, TheNewRight vs. the Constitution (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 1987), 28
186. Frederick G. Whelan, “Prologue: Democratic Theory and the Boundary Problem,” 13–47 in Pennock and Chapman, eds., Liberal Democracy (Nomos XXV), 24–5
187. Bork, The Tempting of America, 153
188. Walter Berns, Taking the Constitution Seriously (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987), 236–7.
189. Paul Brest, “The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding,” 60 Boston University Law Review 204, 225 (1980)
190. Samuel Freeman, “Original Meaning, Democratic Interpretation, and the Constitution,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Winter 1992), 12
191. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, ed. J. G. A. Pocock (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1987), 50–1.
192. Berns, Taking the Constitution Seriously, 23.
193. John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, ed. C. B. Macpherson (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1980), 8.
194. Locke, Second Treatise, 13–14.
195. Lilian Bevier, Michael McConnell, and Frank Easterbrook, in 66 GeorgeWashington Law Review 1085 (1998).
196. Thomas A. Bailey and David M. Kennedy, The American Pageant, 8th ed. (New York: D. C. Heath & Company, 1987), 144
197. Joseph Grano, “Judicial Review and a Written Constitution in a Democratic Society,” 28 Wayne Law Review 1 (1981).
198. Maltz, Rethinking the Constitution, 26–7.
199. Bork, The Tempting of America, 252.
200. Gary L. McDowell, “The Politics of Original Intention,” in Robert A. Goldwin and William A. Schambra, eds., The Constitution, the Courts, and the Quest for Justice (Washington, DC: AEI, 1989), 3
201. Berns, Taking the Constitution Seriously, 70.
202. Bork, The Great Debate: Interpreting Our Written Constitution, Paul G. Cassell, ed. (Washington, DC: The Federalist Society, 1986), 45.
203. Berns, Taking the Constitution Seriously, 236–7.
204. Christopher Wolfe, Judicial Activism: Bulwark of Freedom or Precarious Security? (Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1991), 14.
205. Locke, Second Treatise, 63–4.
206. Antonin Scalia, “Originalism: The Lesser Evil,” 57 University of Cincinnati Law Review 849, 856–7 (1989).
207. Larry Simon, “The Authority of the Constitution and Its Meaning: A Preface to a Theory of Constitutional Interpretation,” 58 Southern CaliforniaLawReview 603, 636 (1985)
208. H. Jefferson Powell, “Rules for Originalists,” 73 Virginia Law Review 659, 676 (1987).
209. Ronald Dworkin, “The Forum of Principle,” in A Matter of Principle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), 33–71
210. Daniel Farber, “The Originalism Debate: A Guide for the Perplexed,” 49 Ohio State Law Journal 1085 (1989)
211. Richard S. Kay, “Adherence to the Original Intentions in Constitutional Adjudication: Three Objections and Responses,” 82 Northwestern University Law Review 226 (1988)
212. Monaghan, “Our Perfect Constitution,” 56 NewYork University Law Review 353, 375 (1981)
213. H. Jefferson Powell, “The Original Understanding of Original Intent,” 98 Harvard Law Review 885 (1985)
214. Charles Lofgren, “The Original Understanding of Original Intent?” 5 ConstitutionalCommentary 77 (1988).
215. Bork, The Tempting of America, 143.
216. Walter Lippmann, The Public Philosophy (New York: New American Library, 1955), 34.
217. Philip Bobbitt, Constitutional Fate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 26.
218. Bork, The Tempting of America, 157.
219. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971), 390
220. H. Jefferson Powell, “Rules for Originalists,” 73 Virginia Law Review 659, 676 (1987).
221. Raoul Berger, “Originalist Theories of Constitutional Interpretation,” 73 Cornell Law Review 350, 350–1 (1988)
222. Richard Saphire, “Enough about Originalism,” 15 Northern Kentucky Law Review 513, 516 (1988).
223. Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry, A History of the American Constitution (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1990), 374
224. Hadley Arkes, Beyond the Constitution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990), 17
225. Gary L. McDowell, ed., Politics and the Constitution: The Nature and Extent of Interpretation (Washington, DC: National Legal Center for the Public Interest and The American Studies Center, 1990), 10-11
226. Perry, Morality, Politics, and Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 132
227. Leonard Levy, Original Intent and the Framers’ Constitution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1988), 10
228. Stephen R. Munzer and James W. Nickel, “Does the Constitution Mean What It Always Meant?” 77 Columbia Law Review 1029, 1030 (1977).
229. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990), 176
230. Thomas Cooley, ATreatiseonConstitutional Limitations (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1868), 55.
231. Bork, The Tempting of America, 5
232. Henry Monaghan, “Stare Decisis and Constitutional Adjudication,” 88 Columbia Law Review 723, 725–7 (1988).
233. Robert Bork, “Original Intent and the Constitution,” Humanities, Vol. 7, No. 1 (February 1986), 26.
234. Wolfe, The Rise of Modern Judicial Review (New York: Basic Books, 1986), 57.
235. Richard Posner, Law and Literature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 229.
236. Wolfe, The Rise of Modern Judicial Review, 24.
237. Wolfe, Judicial Activism, 12
238. Brest, “The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding,” 60 Boston University Law Review 204, 204 (1980)
239. Wolfe, The Rise of Modern Judicial Review, 18–19.
240. Wolfe, The Rise of Modern Judicial Review, 48
241. Michael J. Perry, “The Authority of Text, Tradition, and Reason: A Theory of Constitutional ‘Interpretation,’” 58 Southern California Law Review 551, 559 (1985).
242. Ann Jefferson and David Robey, eds., ModernLiterary Theory, 2nd ed. (Totowa, NJ: Barnes& Noble Books, 1986), 9.
243. Larry Simon, “The Authority of the Constitution and Its Meaning: A Preface to a Theory of Constitutional Interpretation,” 58 Southern CaliforniaLawReview 603, 636 (1985)
244. Bork, The Tempting of America, 157
245. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Michael Oakeshott, ed. (New York: Collier Books, 1962), 41
246. Owen Fiss, “Objectivity and Interpretation,” 34 Stanford Law Review 739, 744 (1982).
247. Robert Bennett, “Objectivity in Constitutional Law,” 132 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 445, 447 (1984).
248. Larry Simon, “The Authority of the Constitution and Its Meaning: A Preface to a Theory of Constitutional Interpretation,” 58 Southern California Law Review 603, 604ff. (1985).
249. Ronald Dworkin, “Law as Interpretation,” 60 TexasLawReview 527 (1982)
250. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971).
251. Bork, The Tempting of America, 176.
252. Robert Bork, “The Struggle Over the Role of the Court,” National Review, September 17, 1982, 1138.
253. Paul G. Cassell, ed., The Great Debate: Interpreting Our Written Constitution (Washington, DC: The Federalist Society, 1986), 52
254. Bork, The Tempting of America, 218.
255. Sanford Levinson, “Law as Literature,” 60 Texas Law Review 373, 376 (1982).
256. E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967), 93.
257. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, 8
258. Paul Brest, “The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding,” 60 Boston University Law Review 204 (1980)
259. Ronald Dworkin, “The Forum of Principle,” in A Matter of Principle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), 33–71
260. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, 13.
261. Richard B. Saphire, “Originalism and the Importance of Constitutional Aspirations,” 24 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 599 (1997).
262. Michael Perry, “The Legitimacy of Particular Conceptions of Constitutional Interpretation,” 77 Virginia Law Review 669, 673 (1991).
263. Michael Perry, Morality, Politics, and Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 131
264. David Couzens Hoy, “A Hermeneutical Critique of the Originalism/Nonoriginalism Distinction,” 15 Northern Kentucky Law Review 479 (1988).
265. Perry, “Legitimacy,” 77 Virginia Law Review 669, 677 (1991)
266. Frederick Mark Gedicks, “Conservatives, Liberals, Romantics: The Persistent Quest for Certainty in Constitutional Interpretation,” 50 VanderbiltLawReview 613 (1997).
267. “Law without Mind,” 88 Michigan Law Review 194, 112 (1989).
268. Perry, Morality, Politics, and Law, 132, 133.
269. Moore, “The Interpretive Turn in Modern Theory: A Turn for the Worse?” 41 Stanford Law Review 871, 873, n. 5 (1989).
270. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd. ed. enl. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970).
271. Christopher Wolfe, The Rise of Modern Judicial Review (New York: Basic Books, 1986), 327–8.
272. William H. Rehnquist, “The Nature of Judicial Interpretation, in Gary McDowell, ed., Politics and the Constitution: The Nature and Extent of Interpretation (Washington, DC: National Legal Center for the Public Interest and The American Studies Center, 1990), 6.
273. Robert Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990), 26
274. Paul G. Cassell, ed., The Great Debate: Interpreting Our Written Constitution (Washington, DC: The Federalist Society, 1986), 34
275. Dworkin, Law's Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), 7
276. Cassell, The Great Debate, 36.
277. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: The Seabury Press, 1975), 274
278. Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996), 71
279. Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in This Class? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980).
280. Ronald Dworkin, AMatter of Principle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), 39–40.
281. Moore, “The Interpretive Turn,” 41 Stanford Law Review 871, 883 (1989).
282. Robert Bennett, “Objectivity in Constitutional Law,” 132 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 445, 496 (1984).
283. Powell, “Parchment Matters,” 71 Iowa Law Review 1427, 1428 (1986).
284. “The Dead Hand of the Architect,” 19 Harvard Journal of Law&Public Policy 245, 249 (1996).
285. Eagleton, Literary Theory, 115.
286. Cassell, The Great Debate, 33.
287. Michael J. Perry, “The Authority of Text, Tradition, and Reason: A Theory of Constitutional ‘Interpretation,’” 58 Southern California Law Review 551, 555 (1985)
288. Henry Monaghan, “Our Perfect Constitution,” 56 NewYork UniversityLawReview 353, 383 (1981).
289. Barry Friedman and Scott B. Smith, “The Sedimentary Constitution,” 147 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1 (1998).
290. Gregory Leyh, “Toward a Constitutional Hermeneutics,” 32 American Journal of Political Science 369 (1988).
291. Paul Ricoeur, Hermeneutics and Human Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 139.
292. “The Dead Hand of Constitutional Tradition,” 19 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 263, 272–3 (1996).
293. Dennis J. Goldford, “Reply to Wolfe and Morgan,” in “Polity Forum: On Constitutional Interpretation,” Polity (Winter 1990), 296–9
294. Levy, Original Intent and the Framers’ Constitution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1988), 9.
295. Michael Moore, “Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution?” 63 Southern California Law Review 107, 121–2 (1989).
296. Wolfe, The Rise of Modern Judicial Review, 38.
297. Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1999).
298. Constitutional Construction: Divided Powers and Constitutional Meaning (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
299. Robert Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the law (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990), 144
300. “The Positivist Foundations of Originalism: An Account and Critique,” 71 Boston University Law Review 1, 6–7 (1991)
301. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: Seabury Press, 1975).
302. Ann Jefferson and David Robey, eds., ModernLiterary Theory, 2nd ed. (Totowa, NJ: Barnes& Noble Books, 1986), 9.
303. Whittington, Constitutional Interpretation, 5.
304. Benjamin Cardozo, The Nature of the Legal Process (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1921), 113
305. The Concept of Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 128
306. Whittington, Constitutional Interpretation, 57
307. Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978), 131–49
308. Whittington, Constitutional Interpretation, 182–7
309. Whittington, Constitutional Interpretation, 104–5.
310. Paul Campos, “That Obscure Object of Desire: Hermeneutics and the Autonomous Legal Text,” 77 Minnesota Law Review 1065 (1993)
311. Whittington, Constitutional Interpretation, 99
312. Whittington, Constitutional Interpretation, 162
313. Quentin Skinner, “Motives, Intentions and the Interpretation of Texts,” in James Tully, ed., Meaning and Context (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), 68–78.
314. Whittington, Constitutional Interpretation, 177
315. Whittington, Constitutional Interpretation, 96
316. Karl Marx, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” excerpted in Robert C. Tucker, ed., The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1978), 595
317. “The Sedimentary Constitution,” 147 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1, 7 (1998).
318. Whittington, Constitutional Interpretation, 179.
319. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: Hilliard, Gray and Company, 1833), Vol. 1, 389.
320. Whittington, Constitutional Interpretation, 49.
321. H. Jefferson Powell, “Parchment Matters: A Meditation on the Constitution as Text,” 71 Iowa Law Review 1427 (1986).
322. Compare Michael Perry, “The Authority of Text, Tradition, and Reason:ATheory of Constitutional ‘Interpretation,’” 58 Southern California Law Review 551, 552 (1985)
323. Sanford Levinson, “‘The Constitution’ in American Civil Religion,” 1979 The Supreme Court Reporter, 123, and Constitutional Faith (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988)
324. William F. Harris, “Bonding Word and Polity: The Logic of American Constitutionalism,” 76 American Political Science Review 34, 34 (1982).
325. Hanna Fenichel Pitkin, “The Idea of a Constitution,” 37 Journal of Legal Education 167, 167 (1987).
326. James Boyd White, WhenWords Lose Their Meaning (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 266
327. “Law and Ideology,” 3 Tikkun, 15 (1988).
328. The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978), 111–12
329. Paul Brest, “Constitutional Citizenship,” 34 Cleveland State Law Review 175 (1986)
330. Sotirios Barber, OnWhat the Constitution Means (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984).
331. Louis Fisher, Constitutional Dialogues (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), 8
332. Thomas Grey, “Constitutionalism: An Analytic Framework,” in J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds., Constitutionalism (Nomos XX) (New York: New York University Press, 1979), 191
333. Charles H. McIlwain, Constitutionalism: Ancient and Modern, rev. ed. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1947), 12
334. Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1969), 260–1
335. Kenneth Dolbeare, American Political Thought (Monterey, CA: Duxbury Press, 1981), 57
336. Lawrence Baum, American Courts: Process and Policy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1986)
337. Lawrence Baum, The Supreme Court (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1981), 2
338. Philip Bobbitt, Constitutional Fate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 29
339. Roscoe Pound, “Mechanical Jurisprudence,” Columbia Law Review, Vol. 8, 1908, 605
340. Larry Simon, “The Authority of the Constitution and Its Meaning: A Preface to a Theory of Constitutional Interpretation,” 58 Southern California Law Review 603, 606 (1985)
341. “The Constitution, Politics, and the Presidency,” in Joseph M. Bessette and Jeffrey Tulis, eds., The Presidency in the Constitutional Order (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981), 4
342. Dennis Lloyd, The Idea of Law (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1970), 217
343. Lloyd, The Idea of Law, 26
344. Edgar Bodenheimer, Jurisprudence: The Philosophy and Method of the Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962), 116
345. H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 78
346. Lloyd, The Idea of Law, 286–7
347. James G. March and Johan Olsen, “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 3 (September 1984), 734–49
348. Cornell W. Clayton and Howard Gillman, eds., Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).
349. “Pluralism and Local Politics,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 4 (March 1963), 425–57
350. G. W. Paton, A Text-book of Jurisprudence, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 23–4
351. John Brigham, Constitutional Language: An Interpretation of Judicial Decision (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1978)
352. Powell, “The Original Understanding of Original Intent,” 98 Harvard Law Review 885, 895–6 (1985)
353. Dennis Lloyd, The Idea of Law (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1970), 214–15
354. Charles Taylor, “Interpretation and the Sciences of Man,” originally published in The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 25, No. 1 (September 1971)
355. Interpretive Social Science: A Reader, Paul Rabinow and William M. Sullivan, eds., (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), 42
356. Richard J. Bernstein, The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978), 61
357. John Searle, Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 33–4
358. Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1969), 282
359. “Is the Constitution Working?” 12 University of Dayton Law Review 351, 356 (1986).
360. H. Jefferson Powell, “Parchment Matters: A Meditation on the Constitution as Text,” 71 Iowa Law Review 1427, 1428–9 (1986).
361. Herman Belz, A Living Constitution or Fundamental Law? American Constitutionalism in Historical Perspective Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1998
362. Ronald N. Dworkin, Law's Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), 50
363. Powell, “Parchment Matters,” 71 Iowa Law Review 1427, 1433 (1986).
364. Walter Berns, Taking the Constitution Seriously (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987), 236–7
365. Robert Tucker, ed., The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1978), 595
366. Georgia Warnke, Gadamer: Hermeneutics, Tradition and Reason (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987), 38
367. Brigham, Constitutional Language, 60–1
368. Lawrence Baum, The Supreme Court (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1981), 2.
369. John W. Kingdon, Congressmen's Voting Decisions, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1981)
370. Paul G. Cassell, ed., The Great Debate: Interpreting Our Written Constitution (Washington, DC: The Federalist Society, 1986), 3
371. Alexander Bickel, TheLeast Dangerous Branch (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986), 105
372. Charles Fried, Order and Law: Arguing the Reagan Revolution (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991), 61
373. James Boyd White, WhenWords Lose Their Meaning (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 266
374. Keith Whittington, “It's Alive! The Persistence of the Constitution,” 8–11, in Symposium: The Constitution of the Living Dead: Binding the Present to the Past, Vol. 11, No. 2 (2002), 10.
375. Joseph M. Bessette, “Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government,” in Robert A. Goldwin and William A. Schambra, eds., How Democratic Is the Constitution? (Washington, DC: AEI, 1980), 102–16
376. Sheldon Wolin, Politics and Vision (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1960), 62–3
377. Lief Carter, Contemporary Constitutional Lawmaking (New York: Pergamon Press, 1985), 15–16
378. “Twilight of the Living Dead?” in Symposium: The Constitution of the Living Dead: Binding the Present to the Past, Vol. 11, No. 2 (2002), 1–7, 4
379. Earl Maltz, “The Failure of Attacks on Constitutional Originalism,” 4 Constitutional Commentary 43, 46 (1987)