To understand the Constitution, it is necessary to first dispel a common misconception. Almost all Americans, whether conservative, libertarian, or liberal, believe the United States Constitution was written to increase individual liberty.
Although I expect that it is covered in your book (which I look forward to reading), can you comment briefly on whether or not the framers would have supported the SCOTUS "originalists"? (Of course, in asking, I do not acknowledge that it is even possible to a an originalist, without infecting one's reading of the text with one's own biases.)
I've got two chapters on the judiciary, one of which covers why Article III is so skimpy and incomplete, and the other on why judicial review was not what the delegates had in mind. To answer your question, the delegates made no secret that they expected the Constitution to evolve as conditions changed and not be mired in the "originalist" past. And yes, haha, it is indeed in the book.
Thanks, David. Same as below about sharing the link. Word of mouth is the best way to get people to be interested in a book...and I do think I'm on to something important that other analysts missed.
I’m wondering about something here. (Disclaimer: I’m about to post a long and winding comment that may appear to be more about me humblebragging than me asking a real question. I do have a question, though.)
The basic point you’re making, if I understand it, doesn’t seem much at odds with the casual reading I’ve done-- (skimming some of the federalist papers, a few college history classes decades ago, skimming a few recent history books that seemed a little more enlightened than some I’d read in the past)--
My vague sense has been that the Constitution-writers were really Constition-sellers. And I don’t think this is my insight-- it follows from things I’ve read.
Slavery gets a lot of ink as a key area leading to compromise/vagueness, but it doesn’t shock me to discover there were many more.
Is it right for me to think that the idea of the framers dealing with an uphill battle and needing to do whatever to get it done is maybe a well-kept secret, but a kind of open secret, where evidence is all over the place once you know to look for it?
My impression is that when this idea gets ignored, it’s ignored in favor of the narrative where the Framers were either bad actors, or sloppy-- and notwithstanding a few obvious moral flaws I don’t ignore, the narrative closer to reality is that a bunch of smart white guys pulled off something amazing, and the flaws that we’re dealing with today were calculated and largely necessary risks?
Also, from your hints about the book, it seems that this will be the book that covers the accurate narrative most thoroughly.
Traditional scholarship has not really discussed negative space, and when it has, it is in the context of, "Oh, they could not anticipate the problems that developed from what was not covered." But they did, and it's right there in the debates and subsequent writings. Madison was particularly eelish, and Hamilton was not as he was portrayed in the show...which was great. As to the Federalist essays, they are totally misunderstood--I spend an entire chapter, titled Unreliable Narrator, on why. Your comments above aren't wrong, but the actual picture that emerges, to me at least, gives a much more nuanced picture of why the country is bedeviled with multiple crises, including minority rule, voting rights, citizenship, guns, and more.
Although I expect that it is covered in your book (which I look forward to reading), can you comment briefly on whether or not the framers would have supported the SCOTUS "originalists"? (Of course, in asking, I do not acknowledge that it is even possible to a an originalist, without infecting one's reading of the text with one's own biases.)
I've got two chapters on the judiciary, one of which covers why Article III is so skimpy and incomplete, and the other on why judicial review was not what the delegates had in mind. To answer your question, the delegates made no secret that they expected the Constitution to evolve as conditions changed and not be mired in the "originalist" past. And yes, haha, it is indeed in the book.
“Clear and lucid prose”-- despite that red flag, I’m interested.
Haha. Thanks. I hope you can overlook such a grievous flaw.
Wonderfully insightful! Congratulations!!
Thanks, David. Same as below about sharing the link. Word of mouth is the best way to get people to be interested in a book...and I do think I'm on to something important that other analysts missed.
I’m wondering about something here. (Disclaimer: I’m about to post a long and winding comment that may appear to be more about me humblebragging than me asking a real question. I do have a question, though.)
The basic point you’re making, if I understand it, doesn’t seem much at odds with the casual reading I’ve done-- (skimming some of the federalist papers, a few college history classes decades ago, skimming a few recent history books that seemed a little more enlightened than some I’d read in the past)--
My vague sense has been that the Constitution-writers were really Constition-sellers. And I don’t think this is my insight-- it follows from things I’ve read.
Slavery gets a lot of ink as a key area leading to compromise/vagueness, but it doesn’t shock me to discover there were many more.
Is it right for me to think that the idea of the framers dealing with an uphill battle and needing to do whatever to get it done is maybe a well-kept secret, but a kind of open secret, where evidence is all over the place once you know to look for it?
My impression is that when this idea gets ignored, it’s ignored in favor of the narrative where the Framers were either bad actors, or sloppy-- and notwithstanding a few obvious moral flaws I don’t ignore, the narrative closer to reality is that a bunch of smart white guys pulled off something amazing, and the flaws that we’re dealing with today were calculated and largely necessary risks?
Also, from your hints about the book, it seems that this will be the book that covers the accurate narrative most thoroughly.
Traditional scholarship has not really discussed negative space, and when it has, it is in the context of, "Oh, they could not anticipate the problems that developed from what was not covered." But they did, and it's right there in the debates and subsequent writings. Madison was particularly eelish, and Hamilton was not as he was portrayed in the show...which was great. As to the Federalist essays, they are totally misunderstood--I spend an entire chapter, titled Unreliable Narrator, on why. Your comments above aren't wrong, but the actual picture that emerges, to me at least, gives a much more nuanced picture of why the country is bedeviled with multiple crises, including minority rule, voting rights, citizenship, guns, and more.
I like this answer very much, thanks!
No problem.
I agree! And will do!
Thanks! Much appreciated, truly.
Nice article. Nice pitch too...
Haha. Thanks. I would not be distressed if you shared the link.