Living Constitution Dying Faith

A “living” constitution. Runaway courts. Legislating from the bench. These phrases come up a lot in the national political debate. They raise the ire of many Americans. But where did the ideas come from? Why do courts play a role so alien to the one the American Founders outlined? And how did unelected judges gain so much power in our democratic republic? Political scientist and legal philosopher Bradley C. S. Watson provides the answers in this important book. To understand why courts today rule the way they do, Watson shows, you must go back more than a century. You’ll find the philosophical and historical roots of judicial activism in the late nineteenth century. Watson traces a line from social Darwinism and pragmatism, through the rise of Progressivism, to our situation today. Living Constitution, Dying Faith reveals a radical transformation of American political thought. This ebook features a new introduction examining the latest developments—which only highlight the prescience of Watson’s arguments.

The New Deal is often said to represent a sea change in American constitutional history, overturning a century of precedent to permit an expanded federal government, increased regulation of the economy, and eroded property protections. John Compton offers a surprising revision of this familiar narrative, showing that nineteenth-century evangelical Protestants, not New Deal reformers, paved the way for the most important constitutional developments of the twentieth century. Following the great religious revivals of the early 1800s, American evangelicals embarked on a crusade to eradicate immorality from national life by destroying the property that made it possible. Their cause represented a direct challenge to founding-era legal protections of sinful practices such as slavery, lottery gambling, and buying and selling liquor. Although evangelicals urged the judiciary to bend the rules of constitutional adjudication on behalf of moral reform, antebellum judges usually resisted their overtures. But after the Civil War, American jurists increasingly acquiesced in the destruction of property on moral grounds. In the early twentieth century, Oliver Wendell Holmes and other critics of laissez-faire constitutionalism used the judiciary’s acceptance of evangelical moral values to demonstrate that conceptions of property rights and federalism were fluid, socially constructed, and subject to modification by democratic majorities. The result was a progressive constitutional regime—rooted in evangelical Protestantism—that would hold sway for the rest of the twentieth century.

He who can change the Constitution controls the Constitution. So who does control the Constitution? The answer has always been: “the people.” The people control the Constitution via the Article V amending process outlined in the Constitution itself. Changes can only be made through Article V and its formal procedures. Article V has always provided a means of perfecting the Constitution in an explicit, democratically authentic, prudent, and deliberative manner. In addition to changing the Constitution Article V also allowed the people to perfect and preserve their Constitution at the same time. In recent years Article V has come under attack by influential legal scholars who criticize it for being too difficult, undemocratic, and too formal. Such scholars advocate for ignoring Article V in favor of elite adaptation of the Constitution or popular amendment through national referendums. In making their case, critics also assume that Article V is an unimportant and expendable part of the Constitutional structure. One notable scholar called the Constitution “imbecilic” because of Article V. This book shows that, to the contrary, Article V is a unique and powerful extension of the American tradition of written constitutionalism. It was a logical extension of American constitutional development and it was a powerful tool used by the Federalists to argue for ratification of the new Constitution. Since then it has served as a means of “perfecting” the US Constitution for over 200 years via a wide range of amendments. Contrary to contemporary critics, the historical evidence shows Article V to be a vital element in the Constitutional architecture, not an expendable or ancillary piece. This book defends Article V against critics by showing that it is neither too difficult, undemocratic, nor too formal. Furthermore, a positive case is made that Article V remains the most clear and powerful way to register the sovereign desires of the American public with regard to alterations of their fundamental law. In the end, Article V is an essential bulwark to maintaining a written Constitution that secures the rights of the people against both elites and themselves.

When is the death penalty considered "cruel and unusual punishment" or "constitutionally permissible"? This book exposes readers directly to landmark opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court that strive to answer difficult questions regarding capital punishment. This book provides far more than an effective overview of the history, current status, and future of capital punishment in America; it supplies excerpts of the words of the justices themselves to make these judicial opinions readily accessible and understandable to general audiences. As a result, readers can see what the justices had to say for themselves regarding more than 30 important cases involving the death penalty—without relying on any intermediary interpretations of their statements. After a brief historical summary of the debate over capital punishment and the arguments favoring and opposing capital punishment, the book "decodes" how the justices have interpreted and applied constitutional provisions to historical and contemporary controversies. Each case includes brief narrative commentaries inserted by the authors to provide context for the justices' words. Additionally, the excerpted judicial opinions are presented as primary source documents for the reader's inspection and reflection.

American Constitutional Law 11e, Volume II provides a comprehensive account of the nation's defining document, examining how its provisions were originally understood by those who drafted and ratified it, and how they have since been interpreted by the Supreme Court, Congress, the President, lower federal courts, and state judiciaries. Clear and accessible chapter introductions and a careful balance between classic and recent cases provide students with a sense of how the law has been understood and construed over the years. The 11th Edition now includes several landmark First Amendment cases, including Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (2018), Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2018), National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Beccera (2018), Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer (2017) and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018). It also includes Carpenter v. United States (2018). A revamped and expanded companion website offers access to even more additional cases, an archive of primary documents, and links to online resources, making this text essential for any constitutional law course.

This book examines how the Constitution and its amendments not only grant the national and state governments sufficient power to control the governed but also oblige these governments to control themselves. It considers the distribution of power in the national government.

American Constitutional Law 11e, Volume I provides a comprehensive account of the nation's defining document, examining how its provisions were originally understood by those who drafted and ratified it, and how they have since been interpreted by the Supreme Court, Congress, the President, lower federal courts, and state judiciaries. Clear and accessible chapter introductions and a careful balance between classic and recent cases provide students with a sense of how the law has been understood and construed over the years. The 11th Edition has been fully revised to include several new cases, including Trump v. Hawaii (2018), in which Chief Justice Roberts held that Korematsu v. United States "has been overruled in the court of history"; Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018), in which Justice Alito’s majority opinion provides the most compelling argument to date against federal commandeering of state officials; and Sveen v. Melin (2018), a Contract Clause case that shows the Court’s continuing refusal to give a textualist reading of that provision, even in the face of Justice Gorsuch’s compelling and amusing dissent. A revamped and expanded companion website offers access to even more additional cases, an archive of primary documents, and links to online resources, making this text essential for any constitutional law course.

In this volume, Bradley C. S. Watson brings together some of America's leading constitutional scholars to reflect on the meaning and significance of 'originalism' in constitutional interpretation and politics. The book brings the subject of constitutional interpretation down from the clouds, showing its relationship to the concerns of the citizen.