So I've been seeing this article floating around and now it's in the WaPo.
What's fascinating is that it's just advice on Liberals to simply claim the constitution. It boils down to "Hey remember civil rights and women's suffrage!" And "The constitution is more than just the actual text and what judges say!"
So... in other words. Ignore that the amendment process was key in civil rights and women's suffrage and keep pretending that the Constitution means "Laws we want are not just acceptable but mandatory!"
Basically this guy is going "Nu-uh! That the Constitution can change to mean whatever we want it to mean IS the real origininalism!"
Which is... different from the status quo... how?
Though this is a huge admission of defeat: "Second, to better understand how the Constitution actually grows and develops, liberal scholars have turned away from the courts and judicial review — now the focus of conservative obsession — and toward the work of ordinary citizens and political movements."
It's not a wise idea to cede the courts and judicial review.
Course the article is full of paranoia about "Oligarchy" (but is oddly silent on how to *deal* with that problem) , and it weaves a conspiracy theory that somehow it was Conservatives who *tricked* liberals into abandoning Constitutional fealty.
And the guy ends by using examples of passed amendments to show how legitimate "Living Constitution" is.
I wonder if he's aware that Originalists don't actually thing amendments aren't legitimate.
I know he *is* aware that the biggest point of the Living Constitution view is that you don't *need* Amendments. That's um... kind of the whole point.