This book explains how the debate over originalism emerged from the interaction of constitutional theory, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and American political development. Refuting the contention that originalism is a recent concoction of political conservatives like Robert Bork, Johnathan O'Neill asserts that recent appeals to the origin of the Constitution in Supreme Court decisions and commentary, especially by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, continue an established pattern in American history.
Originalism in American Law and Politics is distinguished by its historical approach to the topic. Drawing on constitutional commentary and treatises, Supreme Court and lower federal court opinions, congressional hearings, and scholarly monographs, O'Neill's work will be valuable to historians, academic lawyers, and political scientists.
|Publisher:||Johns Hopkins University Press|
|Series:||The Johns Hopkins Series in Constitutional Thought|
|Product dimensions:||5.90(w) x 8.90(h) x 0.90(d)|
|Age Range:||18 Years|
About the Author
Johnathan O'Neill is an assistant professor of history at Georgia Southern University.
Table of Contents
1. From Textual Originalism to Modern Judicial Power
2. Modern Judicial Power and the Process-Restraint Tradition
3. The Return of Originalist Analysis in the Warren Court Era
4. At the Crossroads: The Originalist Idea in Post–Warren Court Politics and Jurisprudence
5. Raoul Berger and the Restoration of Originalism
6. Originalism in the Era of Ronald Reagan
7. Robert Bork and the Trial of Originalism
8. Originalism in the 1990s: The Transformation of Academic Theory and the Limitations of Practice
What People are Saying About This
Will surely become the standard reference for scholars and students interested in the development of originalism as a theory of constitutional interpretation.