Despite occasional rhetoric to the contrary, neither conservative nor liberal justices are shy about overruling constitutional precedent they believe to be badly misguided. And that's a good thing.
Legal scholar Eric Segall argues originalism doesn't qualify as a constitutional theory because originalists disagree on too many things. His case is overstated. But if it's correct, the same criticism applies to living constitutionalism.
Living constitutionalists argue that their methodology allows us to improve constitutional law over time. But what if it actually makes it worse? Legal scholar Ernest Young raises that very question in an important new article.
Efforts on both right and left to make the democracy-promotion the key focus of constitutional law should be rejected.
The National Constitution Center summarizes contributions to the ongoing debate over the constitutionality of the Space Force - including a new Congressional Research Service report on the subject.
Some originalists believe that following the original meaning of the Constitution is intrinsically valuable, while others support it only for instrumental reasons. The difference between the two approaches has important implications.
You don't have to be an originalist to conclude that the Constitution requires congressional authorization for war.