Learn more about the important principles found in the Constitution!

According to hard critics, factors like original understandings andthe supposed discipline of common law reasoning seldom, if ever,succeed in fixing meaningful limits upon government power. As aresult, reliance on such factors in constitutional adjudication onlyserves: (a) to rationalize the purely political decisions of judgespursuing, consciously or not, their own political ideologies. Furtherconsequences include: (b) a serious affront to democracy. In mostconstitutional democracies, the judges who ultimately decideconstitutional cases are appointed, not elected. That is, they holdoffice not because they were selected to do so by the democraticcommunity, but because of a decision on the part of a President, aPrime Minister, a small group of fellow judges, or a judicialcommittee of Parliament. Furthermore, these appointed judges tend tocome from the privileged classes of society. The end result is that a smallgroup of unelected, elitist judges with the power to substitute theirown, highly contentious views about the proper limits of governmentpower for the considered judgments of the people’s representatives,e.g., those members of Congress or Parliament duly elected toexercise, on behalf of the people, the latter’s sovereign right toparticipate in political decisions affecting their basic rights. Andpossibly (c): suppression of those—women, minority racialgroups, the poor, and so on—whose interests are not adequatelyrecognized and protected by the dominant, mainstream ideologies towhich these elite judges have an affinity. Instead of the curbing ofrights-threatening government power for which the idea ofconstitutionalism is supposed to stand, we have political suppressiondisguised in a cloak of false constitutional legitimacy.

Explore who we are, what we do, and why we do it!

Learn more about our premier summer program for students!

Check out our popular summer colloquium for educators!

But if we are not to be tied in these ways to the so-called dead handof the past when we engage in constitutional interpretation, how arewe to proceed? The dominant alternative, living constitutionalism,takes its inspiration from the difficulties in originalism sketched inthe preceding paragraphs. It does so by construing aconstitution—or at least those parts of it that incorporateabstract principles[]—as a living entity whose limitations are sometimes open to revisitingand revision in light of those changing times and (one hopes) improvedmoral/political understandings that tend to cause originalists so muchtrouble.

A community discussion featuring FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai.

So we are left with the question of why we should speculate about whata long-dead group of individuals might have intended orwanted done were they apprised of what we now know. The main appeal oforiginalism is that it appears to tie constitutional interpretation tomorally neutral, historical facts about actualbeliefs, intentions and decisions of individuals with thelegitimate authority to settle fundamental questions concerning theproper shape and limits of government powers. If we are now toconsider, not what they did decide, believe or understand,but what they should decide were they to exist today and knowwhat we now know, then the main appeal of originalism vanishes. And sothe question naturally arises: Why not just forget this theoreticallysuspect, counterfactual exercise and make the decisions ourselves?

1310 North Courthouse Rd. #620 Arlington, VA 22201
The villas of CAPARRUA are in Cetraro, in the province of Cosenza, in Calabria.

Review to make sure your submission complies with all rules.

Email or mail by USPS your essay with the to the local/state NSCDA Congressional Essay representative or Patriotic Service Chair as directed. Unsure about who this person is? Please email for the correct name and contact information. Please include your name, State and county/parish of your school and contact information.

The villas of CAPARRUA are in Cetraro, in the province of Cosenza, in Calabria.

Donations to this Essay Contest are greatly appreciated.

To sum up, according to hard critics, a constitution is anything butthe protection from unwarranted government power that its championshave heralded over the centuries. What is taken to be the obviousmeaning of a key term like ‘equal before the law’ is whatthe dominant group understands or claims it to be. What is taken to bethe obvious original understandings or historical intentions of theconstitution’s authors are whatever understandings or intentions fitthe ideologies of the dominant groups. What is taken to be the bestarticulation of the right to equality emerging from a fair anddisciplined common-law analysis of that right, is nothing but arationalization of current social structures, all of whichsystematically oppress the interests of women, minorities and thepoor.

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Although constitutionalism has been widely embraced round the world,it is by no means without its detractors. This is especially true whenwe turn to those constitutions that not only create and regulate theoffices of government but also purport to protect abstract rights ofpolitical morality. Some critics—we’ll call these the hardcritics—assert that such apparently rights-protectiveconstitutions cannot effectively and legitimately serve to protectindividuals against the oppressive forces of governments.[] On the contrary, they only serve to mask legal and political practicein a false cloak of legitimacy. Other critics—we’ll call thesethe democratic critics—are not so utterly dismissive ofrights-protecting constitutions. Rather, their main concern is tochallenge the role that democratically unaccountable judges typicallyplay in the interpretation and application of such constitutions.