Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

How to study the Constitution

The study of the Constitution can seem daunting to those who want to gain a greater understanding of this unique document. To begin with, there are eight historic periods that shaped our Constitution. 
  1. Constitutional Convention
  2. Public debate on Constitution as reflected in the Federalist and Antifederalist Papers
  3. State Ratification Conventions
  4. First Congress and Bill of Rights
  5. George Washington precedents
  6. Supreme Court Rulings
  7. Amendments beyond the Bill of Rights
  8. Executive encroachment with emphasis on Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and Obama

As a constitutional conservative, I recommend starting with the convention and the Framers. Besides, it’s always a good idea to start at the beginning.

preserve and protect

There are countless history books on the Constitutional convention. In these books, the convention is usually presented in one of two ways: chronologically or by subject.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Constitutional Dichotomy

“What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental law are established.” Constitutional delegate William Paterson, author of the New Jersey Plan

What does the Constitution mean? What is its purpose? Is it meant to be followed verbatim or is it a living document? With a few inconsequential exceptions, all Americans revere the Constitution. But people see it differently. Very differently.

Tempest at Dawn
National Constitution Center 

Perspectives on the Constitution generally fall into two classes.

Friday, September 20, 2013

A Capacity to Annoy or Injure

“There is not a syllable in the plan [the Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 81

 During the Constitutional Convention and state ratification conventions, the judiciary was the least discussed branch of the national government. From a design perspective, almost all of the debate and alarm seemed to have been focused on the executive and the legislature. The simplest explanation is that the judiciary was familiar and non-controversial. Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78, “[T]he judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.” 
Every delegate knew what a judge did and understood their role in the government, and their only concern was insuring their independence. A few anticipated that judges might legislate from the bench, but most of the delegates were more concerned about politicians putting undue pressure on judges. The Framers solution to this threat was to give justices life tenure.


For nearly one hundred and fifty years, the Supreme Court restricted itself to evaluating laws based on what today would be called an originalist perspective. The Commerce, General Welfare, and Necessary and Proper clauses and Bill of Rights were interpreted on a generally narrow basis. The court took the enumerated powers seriously, showed deference to state authority, and restricted interference with contracts.