A great constitutional debate explained (by Steve)

[Valin]

Power Line:

Paul Mirengoff

February 24, 2017

 

Most conservatives will be delighted if Neil Gorsuch, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, views the Constitution and his role in interpreting it the way Justice Antonin Scalia did. But George Will hopes that Gorsuch will improve on Scalia.

 

How? By interpreting the Constitution as a charter of government for a nation dedicated to the proposition that all persons are created equal in their possession of natural rights. Scalia rejected this approach, saying “if you want aspirations, you can read the Declaration of Independence,” but “there is no such philosophizing in our Constitution,” which is “a practical and pragmatic charter of government.”

 

The debate here is between what Steve Hayward has called the “two originalisms.” He lays out the dispute in Chapter 7 of his brilliant new book Patriotism Is Not Enough.

 

The books subtitle is “Harry Jaffa, Walter Berns, and the arguments that redefined American Conservatism.” The clash of the “two orginalisms” represents one of those arguments.

 

(Snip)

 

Steve has noticed, as Will does, that Neil Gorsuch studied at Oxford under John Finnis, author of the book “Natural Law and Natural Rights.” So perhaps Gorsuch will interpret the Constitution in the way Will desires. Even if so, don’t expect him to say this during his confirmation hearing.

 

Let me conclude by plugging Steve’s book. The dispute over the Constitution is just one dimension of the absorbing debate Steve analyzes. And in addition to those debates, there is a helluva lot of great story telling.

[Valin]