Antonin Scalia and American Constitutionalism is an in-depth study of Justice Antonin Scalia's jurisprudence, his work on the Supreme Court, and his significance in the history of American constitutionalism. After tracing Scalia's rise to Associate Justice and his subsequent emergence as a hero of the Republican Party and the political right, this book reviews and criticizes his general jurisprudential theory, arguing that he failed to produce either the objective method he claimed or the correct constitutional results he promised. Focusing on his judicial performance over his thirty years on the Court, it examines his decisions and opinions on virtually all of the constitutional issues he addressed from the fundamentals of structure (federalism, separation of powers, and the Article III judicial power) to specific interpretations of most major constitutional provisions involving governmental powers and the rights of individuals under the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. This book argues that Scalia applied his jurisprudential theories in inconsistent and contradictory ways and often ignored, distorted, or abandoned the interpretive methods he proclaimed to reach the results he sought, results that were aligned with and supported by the post-Reagan Republican coalition. Scalia was far more consistent in enforcing such ideologically compatible results than he was in following his proclaimed jurisprudential theories. Finally, assessing Scalia's historical significance, Antonin Scalia and American Constitutionalism argues that his jurisprudence and career are particularly illuminating because they exemplify--contrary to his persistent claims--three paramount characteristics of American constitutionalism: the inherent inadequacy of originalism and other formal interpretive methodologies to produce consistent and correct answers to controverted constitutional questions; the close relationship that exists, particularly so in Scalia's case, between constitutional theories and interpretations on one hand and substantive political goals and values on the other; and the unavoidably living nature of American constitutionalism itself. All in all, Scalia stands as a towering figure of irony because his judicial career deconstructed the central claims of his own jurisprudence.

"This book is the first comprehensive, reasoned, and sympathetic analysis of how Scalia has decided cases during his entire nineteen-year Supreme Court tenure. Ralph Rossum focuses on Scalia's more than 600 Supreme Court opinions and dissents - carefully wrought, passionately argued, and filled with well-turned phrases - which portray him as an eloquent defender of an "original meaning" jurisprudence. He also includes analyses of Scalia's Court of Appeals opinions for the D.C. Circuit, his major law review articles as a law professor and judge, and his provocative book, A Matter of Interpretation."--Jacket.

Antonin Scalia and American Constitutionalism is an in-depth study of Justice Antonin Scalia's jurisprudence, his work on the Supreme Court, and his significance in the history of American constitutionalism. This book reviews and criticizes his general jurisprudential theory, arguing that he failed to produce either the objective method he claimed or the correct constitutional results he promised.

This volume examines constitutional law in a unique, developmental framework that shows how key events through American history have shaped the Supreme Court's understanding of the Constitution. Places unique emphasis on the political, economic, social and developmental aspects of the Supreme Court's constitutional decisions. The book examines the great issues and events of government and politics in the early, middle, and modern constitutions, how they have shaped the Supreme Court's understanding of the Constitution, and how the distributive consequences of that understanding, in turn, affect American political life. For those who are interested in the American constitution.

In an ere as morally confused as ours, Stoner argues, we at least ought to know what we've abandoned or suppressed in the name of judicial activism and the modern rights-oriented Constitution. Having lost our way, perhaps the common law, in its original sense, provides a way back, a viable alternative to the debilitating relativism of our current age.

With seven of its justices appointed by Republican presidents, today's Supreme Court has significantly altered America's legal landscape since 1986 by tilting constitutional jurisprudence to the right. That was the goal of Presidents Reagan and Bush in filling court vacancies and has been felt in cases related to federalism, economic rights, and affirmative action. However, liberal issues such as abortion have moved only marginally to the right, while rulings by the Court on school prayer and gay rights have moved constitutional doctrine slightly to the left. In this collection of original articles, prominent constitutional scholars are joined by new voices from the cutting edge of academia to subject the Rehnquist Court to closer scrutiny and to show that its brand of conservatism is less extreme than many have supposed. Reflecting views across the political spectrum, the contributors help readers understand the Court dynamic, its constrained conservatism, and the forces that shape constitutional law in general. As these authors show, the overall pattern of decision-making in the Rehnquist era cannot be attributed to any single, unified approach to constitutional analysis. Instead, today's Court can only be understood as the product of a complex interaction among individual justices, each with an idiosyncratic view of the proper interpretation of the Constitution and the role of the Court in the American political system. These provocative essays are designed to provide readers with insight into this interaction by focusing on each member of the bench. From the staunch conservatism of Clarence Thomas, to the "accommodationism" of Sandra Day O'Connor, to the "liberal constitutionalism" of David Souter, the essays analyze the unique approach of each justice to interpreting the Constitution. They also show that the current justices are the product of a nomination and confirmation process that has undergone a major transformation in recent decades one which favors experienced, often unknown jurists over high-profile public servants. By concentrating attention on its members, "Rehnquist Justice" allows us to better understand the Supreme Court as a whole. And by assessing today's judiciary in light of a public philosophy that looks askance at government, it shows us that the Supreme Court has truly become a mirror of its times."

Cultural history and themendment : New York Times v. Sullivan and its times / Kermit L. Hall -- New directions in American constitutional history -- Words as hard as cannon-balls : women's rights agitation -- And liberty of speech in nineteenth-century America / Sandra F. VanBurkleo -- Race, state, market, and civil society in constitutional history / Mark Tushnet -- Constitutional history and the "cultural turn" : cross -- Examining the legal-reelist narratives of Henry Fonda / Norman L. Rosenberg -- Contributors