Document Type
Book Review
Publication Date
3-2018
ISSN
1537-5927
Language
en-US
Abstract
It is a privilege to participate in this exchange with Bruce Frohnen concerning our books. In my Fidelity to Our Imperfect Constitution, I observe that in recent years, many have assumed that originalists have a monopoly on concern for fidelity in constitutional interpretation. I reject all forms of originalism and defend a moral reading of the United States Constitution. Such a conception views the Constitution as embodying abstract moral and political principles, not codifying concrete historical rules or practices. It sees interpretation of those principles as requiring normative judgments about how they are best understood, not merely historical research to discover relatively specific original meanings. I argue that fidelity in interpreting the Constitution requires a moral reading. Fidelity commits us to honoring the aspirational principles embodied in our constitutional text and practice, not merely following the relatively specific original meanings of the Founders. Only a moral reading that aspires to interpret our imperfect Constitution so as to make it the best it can be gives us hope of interpreting it in a manner that may deserve our fidelity.
Recommended Citation
James E. Fleming & Bruce P. Frohnen,
Response to Bruce Frohnen’s review of Fidelity to our Imperfect Constitution: For Moral Readings and Against Originalisms
,
in
16
Perspectives on Politics
183
(2018).
Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592717003735
Comments
This is part of the Perspective on Politics Critical Dialogue feature, which involves two specialists, in this case James Fleming and Bruce Frohnen, discussing topics in their recent publications and exchanging ideas about each other's publications. The article therefore has sections written by both James Fleming and Bruce Frohnen.