Question: Federalism and Original Meaning

I thought it might be good to interject with a question. Federalism and judicial review are the two "great questions" of American constitutionalism. How did we get the supremacy clause? How are the boundaries between the state and the federal government supposed to be regulated? How did the Federalists' defense of the finished product differ from the Convention discussions?

Jack Rakove Interview

This is an interesting interview with Dr. Rakove.  He discusses what he believes are the most important contributions Original Meanings makes to the field.

Enjoy!

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/1998/rakove.html

Original Meanings

I have just read "Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution" for a previous class so my pre-read of this book has already been done. However I think the title is very indicative of some Rakove's goal for this book. It implies that there is more than a single possible interpretation of the Constitution. The second part of the title seems to also express some struggle intellectually that might (we all know there was) have occurred in the process so to speak, in the writing of the Constitution.  Thoughts?

Boumediene v. Bush

In what may be the most significant constitutional showdown of the twenty-first century thus far, a number of detainees at Guantanamo Bay are suing out a writ of habeas corpus. The writ's practical suspension in the name of the Bush administration's "war on terror" has been one of the most frightening--and least reported upon--issues alive today in the United States.

The Bush administration argues that habeas corpus simply does not apply to enemy aliens captured on the battlefield. Supporters of the administration point out that there is not a single such precedent in American or British law supporting exactly the fact pattern of Boumediene. Lawyers for the detainees have repeatedly pointed out that this is incorrect, if only because the common law writ of habeas corpus was not traditionally restricted to subjects (or in America, to citizens), and that notions of subjectship were simply not as well articulated as they are today.

The argument is of course much bigger than this. Few supporters of habeas corpus would argue that the writ should extend to the Guantanamo detainees if, for instance, the Bush administration treated them as true prisoners of war and extended them the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Supporters of the Bush administration are also forced to argue that the U.S. courts have no jurisdiction because the United States is not sovereign in Cuba and merely holds a lease for the military base. As absurd as this is on its face, the U.S. Congress has attempted to strip the courts of jurisdiction in these matters, which has subsequently forced great separation of powers questions on the Supreme Court.

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court can be found here. The set of consolidated cases that make up Boumediene v. Bush are well worth listening to and considering as a set of very serious historical problems. How far does the writ of habeas corpus apply? To what extent does the U.S. Supreme Court have the ability to countermand the executive and the legislative branches? And to what extent do political divisions on the court itself reflect different judicial outcomes? Oral arguments before the Court are wonderful ways for the justices to signal each other how they intend to vote and what they intend to argue. What kind of politics do we see here? It is an enormously important question as the imperial presidency rolls onward.

One issue, from a constitutional historian's point of view, is about just how much original meaning is controlling and precisely how it is recovered. One doubts that Justice Scalia's continued refrain "you can't find me one case where habeas was extended to an enemy alien" is relevant. It ignores the development of habeas corpus as a writ and, for that matter, fails to deal with the significant problems of today.