Bill of Rights

Patrick Garry’s Reply to Responders

Print Friendly

I am honored to be a part of this debate on the Bill of Rights with such accomplished and knowledgeable scholars. The three responding essays by Dr. Bowling, Professor Erler and Professor Ramsey provide keen insights on constitutional law and

The Constitution Created an Expansive, not a Strictly Limited Federal Government

Print Friendly

The revolution of 1787-1791 overthrew a constitution that strictly limited the federal government in favor of one with general welfare and necessary and proper clauses that allowed the federal government to absorb state powers over time. It also tossed out

Limited Government and Individual Autonomy

Print Friendly

Patrick Garry’s essay “The Constitution’s Structural Limits on Power Should Be the Focus of the Bill of Rights” contains many valuable insights. In particular, it re-affirms the proposition – lost for many years but perhaps gaining some new currency –

Natural Rights and the Limited Government Model of the Constitution: A Response to Patrick Garry

Print Friendly

There is much to commend Professor Garry’s essay. He is eminently correct in saying that the Constitution contemplated a limited government. Whether it adhered to a “limited government model” is a different issue.

What is more than curious, however,

The Constitution’s Structural Limitations On Power Should Be the Focus of the Bill of Rights

The Constitution’s Structural Limitations On Power Should Be the Focus of the Bill of Rights

Print Friendly

Ever since the Warren era of expansive individual rights jurisprudence, leading to the Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence culminating in Roe v. Wade, jurists, as well as the public at large, have grappled with the issue of judicial activism

Responses

Original Methods Originalism Best Defends the Classical Liberal Constitution: A Response to Epstein

Print Friendly

We are grateful to Richard Epstein for taking the time to reply, but are disappointed that he attributes to us positions we do not hold, indeed ones that are the reverse of our positions. We will first clear up some