U.S. Constitution

A review of a book by Sean Wilentz's "No Property in Man," which argues that the document is full of anti-slavery language.

Conservatives and liberals both cite the nation’s charter, but they’re not talking about the same parts of it.

A new history of the early republic explores the origins of originalism.

Conservatives have claimed the moral high ground of so-called originalism. Liberals need to put forward their own vision.

The Constitution of 2018 is not the Constitution written by the Framers in 1787, and no one should wish otherwise.

The debate between "originalism" and the "living constitution" rages on. What does history say?

"Sex and the Constitution: Sex, Religion, and Law from America’s Origins to the Twenty-First Century" by Geoffrey R. Stone.

Review of The Framers' Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution, by Michael J. Klarman.

People continue to interpret the U.S. Constitution in different ways. One way is an originalist framework that favors the Founding Father's intent in 1787.

The text and historical context of the Constitution provide liberals with ample opportunities to advance their own vision of America.

100 years ago, Chief Justice William Howard Taft made the Court more efficient and more powerful, marking a turning point whose effects are still being felt.

On the folly of relying on history to settle the debate over whether the Fourteenth Amendment should bar Trump from office.

When we try to recover the “original meaning” of constitutional amendments, we begin with deeply engrained premises about the nature of what we're looking for.

In a recent Supreme Court oral argument about disarming domestic abusers, originalism itself was put to the test.

Despite Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, a Colorado state judge stretches the word “officer,” permitting him to remain on the state’s ballot.

Government, wrote Alexander Hamilton, should substitute “the mild influence” of the law for “the violent and sanguinary agency of the sword.”

Scholars and pundits are suddenly interested in the section disqualifying insurrectionists from offices. But text and history don't offer clear answers.

Tocqueville understood how constitutional review, without meaningful checks, could enable judicial despotism.

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

Critics of the Supreme Court think it has lost its claim to legitimacy. But proposals for reforming it must strike a balance with preserving its independence.