An article from last October's "Keeping Faith with the Constitution in Changing Times" symposium, co-sponsored by Constitutional Interpretation and Change Issue Group and Vanderbilt University Law School. The symposium was held at Vanderbilt University Law School in October 2006.

Jack Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment, Yale Law School, discusses constitutional fidelity in Fidelity to Text and Principle. Professor Balkin explains, “Fidelity to the Constitution means grappling with its text and its principles, applying them to our present circumstances, and making use of the entire tradition of opinions and precedents that have sought to vindicate and implement the Constitution. Reasonable people may disagree on what those principles mean and how they should apply. But the larger point about constitutional interpretation remains. We decide these questions by reference to text and principle, applying them to our own time and our own situation, and in this way making the Constitution our own. The conversation between past commitments and present generations is at the heart of constitutional interpretation. That is why we do not face a choice between living constitutionalism and fidelity to the original meaning of the text. The two are opposite sides of the same coin.”

An article from last October's "Keeping Faith with the Constitution in Changing Times" symposium, co-sponsored by Constitutional Interpretation and Change Issue Group and Vanderbilt University Law School. The symposium was held at Vanderbilt University Law School in October 2006.

Barry Friedman, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, traces three decades of debate over constitutional interpretation in The Constitution: Change and Interpretation. Professor Friedman discusses how the both liberals and conservatives developed agenda-driven responses to the decisions of the Warren and Burger Court from the 1950s through the 1980s; the Left used moral philosophy, apart from the Constitution’s text, to justify the Court’s work, while the Right honed its theory of originalism to develop a framework for criticizing Court decisions. Professor Friedman notes that neither view found favor with the public, which “[i]n large measure agreed with what the Supreme Court had decided, accepted the notion of a living Constitution, adaptable to changing circumstances and capable of addressing the felt needs of the times.” Professor Friedman concludes his piece by examining the nominations of Judge Robert Bork and Justice Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court. He notes Judge Bork’s nomination was defeated, at least in part, because the public feared the results of his originalist methodology. Justice Kennedy, in contrast, articulated in his confirmation hearing a view of constitutional interpretation that “squared with public opinion, eschewing both rigid originalism and moral philosophy for the middle ground of a living Constitution” and was confirmed unanimously.

An article from last October's "Keeping Faith with the Constitution in Changing Times" symposium, co-sponsored by Constitutional Interpretation and Change Issue Group and Vanderbilt University Law School. The symposium was held at Vanderbilt University Law School in October 2006.

In Self-Government, Change and Justice, Rebecca L. Brown, Allen Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School, considers “why the Constitution should be binding on us” and what the implications of the answer are on constitutional interpretation. Professor Brown argues “the key to democratic legitimacy is the Constitution’s ability to provide a structure within which the polity can continue to exercise its right to self-government, including giving voice to its own commitments of political morality. Thus, it is imperative that the rights-bearing terms of the Constitution be interpreted in a way that can change and expand with the values of each generation. Not only is a dynamic constitutionalism defensible, therefore, it is absolutely essential in order for the Constitution to maintain its democratic legitimacy.”