Rational Judicial Review: Constitutions as Power-sharing Agreements, Secession, and the Problem of Dred Scott
Judicial review and originalism serve as valuable commitment mechanisms to enforce future compliance with a political bargain.
Summary
Scholars have engaged in a sharp argument over whether the judiciary should follow the original understanding in interpreting the Constitution. Recent criticism has argued that originalism fails because it does not advance a substantive moral or political good. This paper responds to this criticism by advancing an instrumental justification for originalism. It argues that a nation may fail to make a constitution because regions with differing policy preferences may not trust each other to obey the agreement after ratification. Constitution-makers can overcome this obstacle by committing to future enforcement of the agreement by an independent judiciary. To maintain the founding bargain, the judiciary would interpret the constitution based on the original understanding of its makers. Using Dred Scott as a case study of a failure in constitution making because of a flawed application of originalism, this Article argues that judicial review and originalism serve as valuable commitment mechanisms to enforce future compliance with a political bargain.
Constitutionalism
Amicus Brief: Hon. William P. Barr and Hon. Michael B. Mukasey in Support of Petitioners
Former AGs Barr and Mukasey Cite Civitas in a SCOTUS Brief
.avif)
Amicus Brief: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish
Civitas Research Fellow Michael Toth's work was cited in a Supreme Court brief.
.avif)
State Courts Can’t Run Foreign Policy
Suncor is also a golden opportunity for the justices to stop local officials from interfering with an industry critical to foreign and national-security policy.
Supreme Court tariff ruling should end complaints that justices favor Trump
John Yoo writes on the Supreme Court’s decision on President Trump’s tariff case.
The Temptation of the Inferior “Imperial Judiciary”
This status quo is not sustainable. Either the President will retain his role as the chief of the executive branch, or he will not. Either the Supreme Court will retain its position as the Supreme Court, or it will not.
Major Questions Doctrine and Its Bipartisan History
Administrative law is important because it provides the framework for so many significant fights about policy. Unfortunately, it is also often misunderstood.
