I would amend
's remarks about liberal constitutionalism slightly. There are three things liberal constitutionalism has going for it, three reasons why it is superior to the snake oil that Justice Scalia has recently been selling in public.
First, liberal constitutionalism is committed to protecting people's rights—rights that most Americans have come to take for granted, including freedom of speech and equality for blacks and for women. Justice Scalia's originalism can't account for many of these results except as mistakes made by previous judges that we are stuck with. Orin rightly emphasizes the power of the populist belief that We the People decide how we will govern ourselves. I would add that belief in basic rights is every bit as populist—and deeply rooted in American traditions—as belief in majority rule. The Declaration speaks of equality and inalienable rights even before it talks about the consent of the governed. It tells us that protecting rights is why governments are formed. We live in a rights culture; people don't like it when their rights are abridged. And history shows that Americans will fight for their rights if they believe that governments threaten to abridge them. Protection of rights and consent of the governed are two key ideas of the Declaration. We must keep both in mind in understanding why our Constitution is great.
TODAY IN SLATE
I was hit by a teacher in an East Texas public school. It taught me nothing.
Republicans Like Scott Walker Are Building Campaigns Around Problems That Don’t Exist
Why Greenland’s “Dark Snow” Should Worry You
If You’re Outraged by the NFL, Follow This Satirical Blowhard on Twitter
The Best Way to Organize Your Fridge
Iran and the U.S. Are Allies
They’re just not ready to admit it yet.
Giving Up on Goodell
How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.