Want to Understand the Constitution? Don’t Ask a Lawyer!
Most Americans say the Constitution is important. Most Americans say it’s crucial for the government to stay within its constitutional bounds. But what exactly are the constitutional limits on federal power? How do we know? Well, whatever you do, don’t ask a lawyer. Most of them know very little about the Constitution. I can already hear some people protesting. Lawyers know a lot about the Constitution. They learn constitutional law, for goodness sake! But read closely what I wrote. I didn’t say they don’t know a lot about constitutional law. I said they typically don’t know a lot about the Constitution. There’s a huge difference. Constitutional law is made up of a bunch of lawyers’ opinions about what the Constitution means. But that’s not how you understand …
The Tyranny of One Man’s Opinion
Thomas Cromwell was the principal behind-the-scenes fixer for much of the reign of King Henry VIII. He engineered the interrogations, convictions and executions of many whom Henry needed out of the way, including his two predecessors as fixer and even the king’s second wife, Queen Anne. When Cromwell’s son, Gregory, who became sickened as he watched his father devolving from counselor to monster, learned that an executioner for the queen had been sent for from France a week before her conviction, he asked his father what the purpose of her trial was if the king had preordained the queen’s guilt and prepaid the executioner. Cromwell replied that the king needed a jury to give legitimacy to her conviction and prevent the public …
Originalism All the Way Down?
How should the Constitution be interpreted? What context should be considered, if at all? And if the Constitution should be interpreted as it was originally conceived, how does one go about determining what the Founders meant? In a review of Originalism and the Good Constitution by John O. McGinnis and Michael B. Rappaport*, Kurt T. Lash at the University of Illinois College of Law examines the rather complicated matter, highlighting the strengths and flaws in their argument. Lash defines originalism in the context of the review as a “reformist movement in contemporary American constitutional law” whose proponents “reject modern interpretive theories such as ‘living constitutionalism’ and call for the restoration of the foundational understanding of the text.” The next question, of course, is how one goes …