Original Intent
The debate over slavery at the Constitutional Convention, and the fact that the Constitution did not prohibit slavery, demonstrates that the signers of the Constitution had fundamental differences over civil rights, among other things. Yet some people argue that today’s judges, when interpreting constitutional issues, should seek to determine the intent of the men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787, and then rule in accordance with those perceived intentions. Search for articles that describe the pros and cons of this doctrine of "original intent" (sometimes called "strict constructionism"). What are the arguments of the two sides? Which side presents the better case?
Here are some articles to get you started. Find them through Keyword searches. Go to InfoTrac.
For more articles on this subject, enter:
"original intent" into Keywords.
"judicial activism" into the Subject Guide.
Religion and the Continental Congress, 1774-1789: Contributions to Original Intent. (Book Reviews). (Review) R. Jonathan Moore. The Journal of Religion Oct 2001 v81 i4 p640(2)
Judicial activism on trial: Roach v. Bork. D.M.M. Goldie. The Advocate Nov 2002 v60 i6 p841(13)
Transferred Intent. (Robert Bork on strict construction) George M. Kraw. American Lawyer May 2001 v23 i5 p77
Undue Restraint: Why judicial activism has its place. Richard A. Epstein. National Review Dec 31, 2000 v52 i25 pNA
A century lost: the end of the originalism debate. Eric J. Segall. Constitutional Commentary Winter 1998 p411(1)
The case against political judging: the man who should now be serving on the Supreme Court defends judicial restraint, and reflects upon the excesses of his liberal opponents. (includes related article ) Robert H. Bork. National Review Dec 8, 1989 v41 n23 p23(6) Mag.Coll.: 52F0518.
Dworkin's "Originalism": The Role of Intentions in Constitutional Interpretation. (Critical Essay) Keith E. Whittington. The Review of Politics, Spring 2000 v62 i2 p197
Supreme Hubris: How the Court overrules the Constitution. Ramesh Ponnuru. National Review, July 31, 2000 pNA
Slavery and original intent: Was the Constitution rotten at the core? (The Slaveholding Republic: An Account of the United States Government Relations to Slavery)_(book review) Allen C. Guelzo. Books & Culture May 2002 v8 i3 p36(2)
Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review. (Review)_(book review) Judith A. Baer. American Political Science Review March 2001 v95 i1 p208
Setting incorporationism straight: a reinterpretation of the Slaughter-House Cases. Kevin Christopher Newsom. Yale Law Journal, January 2000 v109 i4 p643
Justice Scalia and the Confrontation Clause: a case study in originalist adjudication of individual rights. Cornelius M. Murphy. American Criminal Law Review Spring 1997 v34 n3 p1243-1266
The original intention of original understanding. Jack N. Rakove. Constitutional Commentary Summer 1996 v13 n2 p159-186
The Constitution's forgotten cover letter: an essay on the new federalism and the original understanding. (Reflections on United States v. Lopez) Daniel A. Farber. Michigan Law Review Dec 1995 94 n3 p615-650
Jaffa v. Bork: an exchange. (philosophical debate between Claremont Institute Senior Fellow Harry V. Jaffa and former Judge Robert Bork over issues of constitutional law and Bork's review of 'Original Intent and the Framers of the Constitution' by Jaffa) National Review March 21, 1994 v46 n5 p 56(4)
The closing of the conservative mind. (Judge Robert H. Bork and original intent) Harry V. Jaffa. National Review July 9, 1990 v42 n13 p40(4)
What am I? A potted plant? The case against strict constructionism. (constitutional law) Richard A. Posner. The New Republic Sept 28, 1987 v197 p23(3) Mag.Coll.: 41C0324.
Meese's 'original intent;' a constitutional shell game. (Edwin Meese) Herman Schwartz. The Nation Dec 7, 1985 v241 p607(4) |
