The New Right v. The Constitution
()
About this ebook
Perhaps the most enduring legacy of the Reagan administration will be the conservative judges it has placed on the Supreme Court and other federal courts. In this provocative essay, Harvard political scientist Stephen Macedo warns that the New Right's "Jurisprudence of Orginal Intent" seems to put untrammeled majoritarianism in place of constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Macedo accuses the New Right of "moral skepticism in the service of majoritarianism" and proposed instead a principled judicial activisim that interprets the Constitution as a charter of liberties protecting individual freedom against a whole range of legislative and executive assaults. Macedo's defense of constitutional liberties sharply challenges constitional theorists of both left and right.
Read more from Stephen Macedo
Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5
Related to The New Right v. The Constitution
Related ebooks
The New Constitutional Order Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLiberty of Contract: Rediscovering a Lost Constitutional Right Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsJames Madison and the Future of Limited Government Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPolitical Questions Judicial Answers: Does the Rule of Law Apply to Foreign Affairs? Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Democratic Constitution: Experimentalism and Interpretation Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThat Eminent Tribunal: Judicial Supremacy and the Constitution Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDeath Grip: Loosening the Law's Stranglehold over Economic Liberty Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Punitive Imagination: Law, Justice, and Responsibility Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsJudicial Independence and the American Constitution: A Democratic Paradox Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsA Constitution of Many Minds: Why the Founding Document Doesn't Mean What It Meant Before Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Limits of Constitutional Democracy Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (Complete Edition): Volume 1 & 2 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWeak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Tyrants in Black Robes: How the Federal Courts Destroyed Our Republic Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLiving Originalism Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law - New Edition Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Cult Of The Court Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSustaining Liberty: And Reclaiming Limited Government in America Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The People’s Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Judge as Political Theorist: Contemporary Constitutional Review Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsMoney, Politics, and the Constitution: Beyond Citizens United Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPolitical Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsReligion and the Constitution, Volume 2: Establishment and Fairness Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Mandate of Dignity: Ronald Dworkin, Revolutionary Constitutionalism, and the Claims of Justice Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsOverruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Public Policy For You
The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Bowling Alone: Revised and Updated: The Collapse and Revival of American Community Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Art of War Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Dreamland: The True Tale of America's Opiate Epidemic Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Dumbing Us Down - 25th Anniversary Edition: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Just Mercy: a story of justice and redemption Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Chasing the Scream: The Inspiration for the Feature Film "The United States vs. Billie Holiday" Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Project 2025: Exposing the Radical Agenda -The Hidden Dangers of Project 2025 for Everyday Americans Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The People's Hospital: Hope and Peril in American Medicine Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5"Trickle Down Theory" and "Tax Cuts for the Rich" Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5No Visible Bruises: What We Don’t Know About Domestic Violence Can Kill Us Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Affluent Society Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care--and How to Fix It Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Capital in the Twenty-First Century Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Not Too Late: Changing the Climate Story from Despair to Possibility Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works--and How It Fails Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Battle for the American Mind: Uprooting a Century of Miseducation Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Social Security 101: From Medicare to Spousal Benefits, an Essential Primer on Government Retirement Aid Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Project 2025: Blueprint for America's Future Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Truth About COVID-19: Exposing The Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports, and the New Normal Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Men without Work: Post-Pandemic Edition (2022) Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Least of Us: True Tales of America and Hope in the Time of Fentanyl and Meth Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Reviews for The New Right v. The Constitution
0 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
The New Right v. The Constitution - Stephen Macedo
Preface
I would like to thank the Cato Institute for allowing me to add a substantial amount of new material to the second edition of this monograph. Chapter 6 expands on a talk I gave at Cato's Public Policy Day in Washington, D.C., on May 22,1987. The Postscript is a revised transcript of my debate with Gary McDowell, former associate director of the Office of Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of Justice, now a resident scholar at the Center for Judicial Studies, and always an able exponent of the New Right's jurisprudence. The original seven chapters are corrected in minor ways, for typographical errors and to take account of recent events.
I hope that this additional material helps advance the argument of the original monograph, but certainly more work needs to be done on the principled alternative to the jurisprudence of the New Right. That project has been importantly furthered by several recent and upcoming publications: American Constitutional Interpretation by Walter F. Murphy, James E. Fleming, and William F. Harris, II (Mineola, N. Y.: Foundation Press, 1986); Takings by Richard Epstein (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986); The Rhetorical Presidency by Jeffrey Tulis (Princeton: Princeton University Press, forthcoming); Theories of Judicial Review by Sotirios A. Barber (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcoming); and Randy Barnett's forthcoming collection of essays on the Ninth Amendment. I have benefited greatly from the work and advice of these scholars.
I. Introduction
The rise to power of the New Right is the preeminent political phenomenon of the last decade. Not only have victories been won on tax cuts, domestic-spending cuts, and military-spending increases, but the political agenda itself has shifted in accordance with New Right imperatives. The waxing power of the right is, at the moment, most evident in the White House and the Senate. But whatever happens in the next election, New Right judicial appointees to the federal bench, and those who may yet join Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, will influence law and public policy in the United States for decades to come.
In the field of constitutional law, partisans of the New Right advocate a new majoritarianism and a fundamental narrowing of judicial protections for individual rights. The New Right's constitutional vision, if accepted by the nation's courts, would represent a decisive shift of power to legislative majorities and a basic revision of the nature of citizenship in America. A careful examination of the jurisprudence of the New Right is, therefore, in order.
The partisans of the New Right portray their constitutional vision as the culmination of hallowed tradition: they claim to be the ideological heirs of the Founding Fathers and the standard-bearers of the historical constitution.
But the New Right's claim to the Founders' legacy is dubious, its allegiance to the Constitution largely rhetorical, and its stature in relation to the great tradition of American constitutional thought unimpressive. What is striking, in fact, is how far the New Right has departed from the ideas of the Founders, the majestic phrases of the Constitution, and what is best in the American political tradition.
Political movements are not monolithic, and no brief work could encompass all the constitutional arguments of everyone associated with the New Right. The discussion in this book, therefore, focuses on a set of claims advanced by prominent New Right scholars and politicians-claims that together constitute the most distinctive and important features of the New Right's jurisprudence. For the sake of simplicity and clarity, the discussion concentrates on the jurisprudence of Judge Robert H. Bork, who has articulated the New Right's most important claims boldly and without inhibition.
It is with good reason that Judge Bork has come to be regarded as the foremost proponent of the constitutional theories of the New Right. As solicitor general, Bork gained national attention when, following the resignation of Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus, he fired Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor in the Watergate affair. President Reagan has recognized Bork's stature by appointing him, along with such fellow conservative law professors as Richard A. Posner and Ralph Winter, to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Bork is quoted approvingly in speeches by Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and he has been scathingly attacked in the pages of the New York Review of Books by the foremost constitutional scholar of the left as Reagan's Justice.
¹ And now, as this second edition goes to press, President Reagan has made his long-awaited appointment of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.
It is not only Bork's notoriety but also his intellectual stature that makes him a formidable figure on the contemporary legal scene. Bork's assault on the active judicial protection ofindividual rights draws on the strongest and most often used weapons in the conservative armory.
First, partisans of the New Right profess a reverence for the historical constitution
and argue that judges should adhere not simply to the text of the Constitution, but to the text interpreted in light of the specific intentions of its Framers. It is necessary to establish the proposition,
says Bork, that the framers' intentions with respect to freedoms are the sole legitimate premise from which constitutional analysis may proceed.
² The New Right is particularly skeptical about the broad rights to privacy and free speech that liberal judges claim to have discovered in the Constitution. Lino Graglia, a likely Reagan administration appointee to the federal bench, denies that the Framers were much concerned with liberty and asserts, The Constitution's protections of individual rights are not only few but also, when read in historical context, fairly clear and definite.
³
Second, to circumscribe judicial power, conservatives argue that democracy is the basic constitutional value: The original Constitution,
according to Bork, was devoted primarily to the mechanisms of democratic choice .... The makers of our Constitution ... provided wide powers to representative assemblies and ruled only a few subjects off limits by the Constitution.
⁴ Giving majorities the power to pass laws defining how everyone should live is, says Bork, the major freedom, of our kind of society.
And Assistant Attorney General William Bradford Reynolds adds, It was well understood at the American Founding that all governmental power derived from the people. Nothing other than popular sovereignty could comport ... with the principles of the Revolution.
⁵ In construing individual rights broadly, say the partisans of the New Right, willful judges usurp matters that are properly legislative.
Third, the New Right claims that abstract philosophical principles,
which are often invoked to support rights claims, should have no authority in politics. For the conservatives, authority resides in the text of the Constitution interpreted in light of the specific historical intentions of the Framers, in democratic principles, and in the common sense
of the people. Bork, moved by a deep moral skepticism, claims that moral ideas reflect only arbitrary, subjective preferences. Therefore, such philosophical abstractions
as individual rights should be banished from our political discourse: they dress up and obscure the mere preferences of intellectuals, which deserve no special weight. Political majorities have, according to Bork, the right to define and suppress
moral harms even if doing so thwarts what some people take to be individual rights or liberty.⁶ Similarly, Reynolds derides the political liberalism of the upper middle class, the university- and professional-school educated ... the liberalism of a verbal elite ... out of touch with the mass of Americans today.
⁷ And for Bork, to require toleration of diversity is to impose moral relativism and to provoke popular weariness with turmoil and relativism.
⁸
Fourth, the New Right asserts that requiring majority respect for minority rights privatizes morality, imposes moral relativism on society, and prevents the formation of a real community. Both Bork and Meese approvingly quote the conservative British jurist Lord Devlin: What makes a society is a community of ideas, not political ideas alone but also ideas about the way its members should behave and govern their lives.
⁹
All four components of the constitutional vision of the New Right, it is argued here, are faulty. References to original intentions do not settle hard constitutional issues. The Constitution does not set up a basically democratic scheme of government but rather a constitutional democracy, a scheme of limited government. Bork's moral skepticism is wholly unconvincing and deeply at odds with the constitutional text and our political traditions: these sources support an active judicial defense of a broad sphere of individual liberties. Liberty and community, finally, are not opposed: a society of free, tolerant individuals is the best form of community, a moral community comporting with America's heritage and the values enshrined in the Constitution. In sum, the New Right invokes original intentions
in order to evade the only intentions that really count: the purposes embodied in the Constitution itself. The New Right's narrow interpretation of individual rights is supported not by the Constitution but by an ideology of majoritarianism and moral skepticism that is deeply at odds with the Constitution. Against both the New Right and the selective activists of the left, a principled activism in service of individual rights both personal and economic will be urged in these pages. By fusing constitutional interpretation and moral theory, principled activism vindicates the Constitution's authority by establishing its rightness.
Footnotes
¹See Edwin Meese's addresses before the American Enterprise Institute (September 6, 1985) and the District of Columbia chapter of the Federalist Society Lawyers Division (November 15, 1985), copies of which may be obtained from the U.S. Department of Justice. See also Ronald Dworkin, Reagan's Justice,
New York Review of Books, November 8,1984, pp. 27-31.
²Robert H. Bork, Tradition and Morality in Constitutional Law, Francis Boyer Lectures on Public Policy (Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1984), p. 10.
³Uno Graglia, How the Constitution Disappeared,
Commentary (February 1986): 23. See also idem, Would the Court Get 'Procedural Due Process' Cases Right If It Knew What 'Liberty' Really Means?
Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy 1 (1985): 813-28. Graglia's position parallels Bork's.
⁴Bork, p. 9.
⁵William Bradford Reynolds, Reviewing the American Constitutional Heritage,
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 8 (1985): 226.
⁶Bork, p. 3.
⁷Reynolds, p. 234.
⁸Bork, p. 8.
⁹Ibid., p. 4; Meese, AEI address, pp. 10-11.
II. The Framers of the Constitution v. Judge Bork
Invocation of the intent of the Framers of the Constitution has long been a crucial element in the conservative attack on an active judiciary. Bork is unequivocal: The framers' intentions with respect to freedoms are the sole legitimate premise from which constitutional analysis may proceed.
¹⁰ Activist judges, say conservatives, willfully ignore the intentions of the Framers, insert their own preferences into the Constitution, and in doing so perpetrate limited coups d'etat.
¹¹
The invocation of the Framers' intentions has great political appeal. Attorney General Edwin Meese has now made it the centerpiece of the Reagan administration's jurisprudence:
What, then, should a constitutional jurisprudence actually be? It should be a Jurisprudence of Original Intention .... This belief in a Jurisprudence of Original Intention ... reflects a deeply rooted commitment to the idea