NOTES

INTRODUCTION: TRIUMPH AND TRAGEDY

    1.     Also in the group was a young lawyer named Josh Blackman, who went on to become a law professor and author of the definitive account of the Obamacare challenges. See Josh Blackman, Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare (New York: PublicAffairs, 2013).

    2.     The Arena, September 18, 2009, available at http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/healthcare-reform-constitutionality.html.

    3.     Ibid.

    4.     Congressional Budget Office, “The Budgetary Treatment of an Individual Mandate to Buy Health Insurance” (1994) (emphasis added), available at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/48xx/doc4816/doc38.pdf.

    5.     Randy E. Barnett, Nathaniel Stewart, and Todd F. Gaziano, “Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional,” Heritage Society Legal Memorandum #49, December 9, 2009, available at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/12/why-the-personal-mandate-to-buy-health-insurance-is-unprecedented-and-unconstitutional#_ftn1.

    6.     See Trevor Burrus, ed., A Conspiracy Against Obamacare: The Volokh Conspiracy and the Health Care Case (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).

    7.     National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566, at 2608 (opinion of Roberts, C.J.).

    8.     Id. at 2587.

    9.     Id. at 2592.

  10.     Id. at 2588 (citations omitted).

  11.     Id. at 2589 (emphasis added). Accord Barnett, at 583 (“A newfound congressional power to impose economic mandates to facilitate the regulation of interstate commerce would fundamentally alter the relationship of citizen and state by unconstitutionally commandeering the people” [emphasis added]).

  12.     See NFIB, 132 S. Ct. at 2607 (opinion of Roberts, C.J.). (“[W]e determine . . . that §1396c is unconstitutional when applied to withdraw existing Medicaid funds from States that decline to comply with the expansion.”)

  13.     Adam Aigner-Treworgy, “President Obama: Overturning Individual Mandate Would Be ‘Unprecedented, Extraordinary Step,’” CNN, April 2, 2012, http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/02/president-obama-overturning-individual-mandate-would-be-unprecedented-extraordinary-step/.

  14.     Randy E. Barnett, “The Disdain Campaign: Responding to Pamela S. Karlan, Democracy and Disdain,” Harvard Law Review Forum 126 (2012): 1.

  15.     Jeffrey Rosen, “Second Opinions: Obamacare Isn’t the Only Target of Conservative Judges,” New Republic, May 4, 2012.

  16.     Bill Mears, “Leahy Urges High Court to ‘Do the Right Thing,’ Keep Health Care Law,” CNN, May 15, 2012.

  17.     See Jan Crawford, “Roberts Switched Views to Uphold Health Care Law,” CBS News, July 1, 2012, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switchedviews-to-uphold-health-care-law/.

  18.     NFIB, 132 S. Ct. at 2594 (emphasis added).

  19.     Id. at 2566.

  20.     Id. at 2579–80.

  21.     Id. at 2579.

  22.     Alexander Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962), 16.

  23.     See Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct It) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

  24.     See Randy E. Barnett, “Constitutional Conventions,” Claremont Review of Books 7 (Summer 2007), http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/constitutional-conventions/.

  25.     James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (New York: Norton, 1987), 42 (statement of E. Randolph).

  26.     Ibid. (emphasis added).

  27.     Ibid., 39 (statement of R. Sherman, advocating that House members be chosen by state legislatures) (emphasis added).

  28.     Madison Notes of Debates, 233 (statement of G. Morris).

  29.     Ibid., 39 (statement of G. Mason) (emphasis added).

  30.     Richard Beeman, Plain Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution (New York: Random House, 2009), xi.

  31.     Ibid., 122.

CHAPTER 1: “TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS”

    1.     From the congressional vote of June 11, 1776, in Pauline Meier, American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence (New York: Vintage Press, 1977), 126.

    2.     Ibid.

    3.     For a detailed examination of the drafting of the Declaration, see ibid., 97–153.

    4.     Ibid., 104.

    5.     See Committee Approved Draft of Virginia Declaration of Rights (May 27, 1776), http://www.gunstonhall.org/georgemason/human_rights/vdr_first_draft.html.

    6.     Ibid. (emphasis added).

    7.     For another account of the centrality of the Declaration to the political and legal theory that underlies the Constitution, see Timothy Sandefur, The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2014).

    8.     Barry Alan Shain, ed., “Diary Entry by Silas Deane (October 3, 1774),” in The Declaration of Independence in Historical Context: American State Papers, Petitions, Proclamations, and Letters of the Delegates to the First National Congresses (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014), 244.

    9.     Elizur Goodrich, “The Principles of Civil Union and Happiness Considered and Recommended: A Sermon (1787),” reprinted in Political Sermons of the American Founding Era: 1730–1805, ed. Ellis Sandoz (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1991), 911, 914–15.

  10.     Ibid., 914.

  11.     Ibid.

  12.     Ibid., 914–15.

  13.     Ibid., 915 (emphasis added).

  14.     Ibid.

  15.     Randy E. Barnett, The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, 2nd. ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 77–82.

  16.     Avalon Project at Yale Law School, “Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, October 14, 1774,” Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolves.asp (accessed September 11, 2014).

  17.     Ibid. (emphasis added).

  18.     John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Laslett, rev. ed. (New York: Mentor, 1965), §6, 311 (emphasis added).

  19.     Avalon Project at Yale Law School, “Virginia Declaration of Rights” (emphases added), http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/virginia.asp (accessed September 11, 2014).

  20.     William Ewald, “The Committee of Detail,” Constitutional Commentary 28 (2012): 240.

  21.     Maier, American Scripture, 193.

  22.     Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546, 551–552 (1823) (emphasis added).

  23.     Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), superseded (1868).

  24.     Committee Approved Draft of Virginia Declaration of Rights (May 27, 1776), http://www.gunstonhall.org/georgemason/human_rights/vdr_first_draft.html.

  25.     Hugo Grotius, 2 De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres, trans. Francis W. Kelsey (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925), 13.

  26.     3 U.S. 386, 388 (1798).

CHAPTER 2: REVISING “REPUBLICANISM”

    1.     Jack Rakove, “James Madison and the Constitution,” http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/creating-new-government/essays/james-madison-and-constitution.

    2.     Ibid.

    3.     Ibid.

    4.     James Madison, “Vices of the Political System of the United States, April 1787,” in The Papers of James Madison, ed. William T. Hutchinson et al., vol. 1 (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1962–77), http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch5s16.html (accessed September 11, 2014).

    5.     Ibid.

    6.     Ibid.

    7.     Ibid.

    8.     Ibid.

    9.     “Constitution of Delaware, 1776,” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/de02.asp#1; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Constitution, 1776, Pennsylvania Archives, vol. 10, 1896, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/de02.asp#1; “Constitution of New Jersey, 1776,” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nj15.asp#1; “Constitution of Georgia, February 5, 1777,” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ga02.asp; “Fundamental Orders of 1639,” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/order.asp; Oscar Handlin and Mary Handlin, eds., The Popular Sources of Political Authority: Documents on the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1966); “Constitution of Maryland, November 11, 1776,” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ma02.asp#1; “Constitution of South Carolina, March 19, 1778,” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/sc02.asp; “Constitution of New Hampshire, 1776,” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nh09.asp; “Constitution of Virginia, June 29, 1776,” http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/academics/founders/VA-Constitution.pdf; “Constitution of New York, April 20, 1777,” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ny01.asp; “Constitution of North Carolina, December 18, 1776,” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nc07.asp#2; “Charter of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, July 15, 1663,” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ri04.asp.

  10.     James Madison, “Federalist #10,” in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: New American Library, 1961), 77.

  11.     Ibid. (emphasis added).

  12.     Ibid.

  13.     Ibid., 78.

  14.     Ibid., 80 (emphasis added).

  15.     Ibid. (emphasis added).

  16.     Ibid.

  17.     James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (New York: Norton, 1987), 39–41 (statement of E. Gerry).

  18.     Ibid., 39 (statement of R. Sherman, advocating that House members be chosen by state legislatures).

  19.     Ibid., 42 (statement of E. Randolph).

  20.     Ibid.

  21.     The central importance of Morris’s role at the conference is examined in William Michael Treanor, “Gouverneur Morris’s Constitution” (work in progress).

  22.     Madison, Notes of Debates, 233 (statement of G. Morris).

  23.     Ibid., 39 (statement of G. Mason).

  24.     Madison, “Federalist #10,” in The Federalist Papers, 82 (emphasis added).

  25.     Ibid., 84.

  26.     James Madison, “Federalist #51,” in The Federalist, ed. J. R. Pole (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2005), 282.

  27.     Ibid.

  28.     Ibid.

  29.     James Madison, “Federalist #45,” in The Federalist, ed. J. R. Pole (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2005), 253.

  30.     Ibid.

  31.     Ibid.

  32.     Alexander Hamilton, “Federalist #78,” in The Federalist, ed. J. R. Pole (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2005), 414.

  33.     Ibid. 415 (emphasis added).

  34.     Ibid. 414 (emphasis added).

  35.     Ibid. (emphasis added).

  36.     On the important difference between a power of judicial review and a judicial duty to follow the law, see Philip Hamburger, Law and Judicial Duty (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008).

  37.     Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803).

CHAPTER 3: “WE THE PEOPLE” AS INDIVIDUALS

    1.     Randy E. Barnett, “Squaring Undisclosed Agency Law with Contract Theory,” California Law Review 75 (1987): 1981.

    2.     U.S. Const. amend. IX.

    3.     Randy E. Barnett, “The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says,” Texas Law Review 85 (2006): 1; Randy E. Barnett, “Kurt Lash’s Majoritarian Difficulty: A Response to ‘A Textual-Historical Theory of the Ninth Amendment,’” Stanford Law Review 60 (2008): 937.

    4.     “Roger Sherman’s Draft of the Bill of Rights,” in The Rights Retained by the People, ed. Randy E. Barnett (Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press, 1989), 351.

    5.     Ibid.

    6.     Ibid.

    7.     Mass. Const. art. I (amended by art. CVI).

    8.     N.H. Const. art. II.

    9.     N.Y. Const. of 1777.

  10.     Pa. Const. of 1776, art. I, § 1.

  11.     Vt. Const. of 1777, ch. I, art. I.

  12.     The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia, in 1787, ed. Jonathan Elliot, vol. 3 (1830), 657, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage (accessed September 11, 2014).

  13.     Register of Debates in Congress, vol. 6 (Washington, DC: Gales & Seaton, 1838), 320 (emphasis added).

  14.     32 U.S. 243, 250 (1833).

  15.     Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).

  16.     Id.

  17.     Id.

  18.     Id. at 454 (Wilson, J.).

  19.     Id.

  20.     Id.

  21.     Id. at 458 (Wilson, J.) (emphasis added).

  22.     Id. at 456 (Wilson, J.).

  23.     Id. (emphasis added).

  24.     Id. at 477 (Jay, J.).

  25.     Id. at 479 (emphasis added).

  26.     Id. at 473 (emphasis added).

  27.     Id. at 448 (Iredell, J.).

  28.     Calder, 3 U.S. at 398 (Iredell, J.)

  29.     Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, rev. ed. (1860), reprinted in The Collected Works of Lysander Spooner, vol. 4, ed. Charles Shively (Weston, MA: M&S Press, 1971), 225.

  30.     Ibid., 143 (emphasis added).

  31.     Locke, Two Treatises of Government, §131, 398 (emphasis added).

  32.     Edmund Randolph, “Opinion of Edmund Randolph, Attorney General of the United States, to President Washington,” in Legislative and Documentary History of the Bank of the United States, ed. M. St. Clair Clarke and D.A. Hall (New York, 1832), 86.

  33.     Ibid. (emphasis added).

  34.     3 U.S. at 388 (Chase, J.)

  35.     Id.

  36.     Id. (emphases added).

  37.     See Randy E. Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty, 2nd. ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014), 369.

  38.     U.S. Const. amend. XI.

  39.     Bruce Ackerman, “De-Schooling Constitutional Law,” Yale Law Journal 123 (2014): 3106.

  40.     Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 14 (1890).

  41.     Id. at 14.

  42.     10 U.S. 87 (1810). (Cranch, W.)

  43.     Id. at 139 (emphases added).

  44.     Id. (emphasis added).

  45.     See, e.g., Martha A. Field, “The Eleventh Amendment and Other Sovereign Immunity Doctrines: Part One,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 126 (1978): 515 (arguing that sovereign immunity is a common law doctrine and not constitutionally compelled); William A. Fletcher, “A Historical Interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment: A Narrow Construction of an Affirmative Grant of Jurisdiction Rather Than a Prohibition Against Jurisdiction,” Stanford Law Review 35 (1983): 1033 (arguing that the amendment does not cover federal question or admiralty jurisdiction); John J. Gibbons, “The Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign Immunity: A Reinterpretation,” Columbia Law Review 83 (1983): 1889 (arguing from a historical standpoint that the amendment’s passage was primarily secured as part of a bargain to enforce the peace treaty); Vicki C. Jackson, “Principle and Compromise in Constitutional Adjudication: The Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign Immunity,” Notre Dame Law Review 75 (2000): 1010 (arguing that “sovereign immunity is in some respects unjust” and “the Eleventh Amendment need not be understood to have endorsed that injustice as a general proposition”); James E. Pfander, “History and State Suability: An ‘Explanatory’ Account of the Eleventh Amendment,” Cornell Law Review 83 (1998): 1269 (arguing that the amendment represented a compromise on fiscal policy between the states and the federal government).

CHAPTER 4: HOW SLAVERY LED TO A MORE REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTION

    1.     Joseph J. Ellis, Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation (New York: Knopf, 2002), 196.

    2.     Alexander Hamilton, “Opinion of Alexander Hamilton, on the Constitutionality of a National Bank,” February 23, 1794, in M. St. Clair Clarke and D. A. Hall, eds., Legislative and Documentary History of the Bank of the United States (1832) (New York: August M. Kelley Publishers, 1967), 98.

    3.     See Gerald Leonard, The Invention of Party Politics: Federalism, Popular Sovereignty, and Constitutional Development in Jacksonian Illinois (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002).

    4.     Ibid., 5.

    5.     Ibid.

    6.     Gerald Leonard, “Jefferson’s Constitutions,” in Constitutions and the Classics: Patterns of Constitutional Thought from John Fortescue to Jeremy Bentham, ed. D. J. Galligan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 369.

    7.     Leonard, Invention of Party Politics, 39.

    8.     George Fitzhugh, “Centralization and Socialism,” University of Michigan: Humanities Text Initiative 20 (1985): 692.

    9.     Ibid.

  10.     Leonard, “Jefferson’s Constitutions,” 370.

  11.     William Lloyd Garrison to Rev. Samuel J. May, July 17, 1845, in The Letters of William Lloyd Garrison, ed. Walter M. Merrill, vol. 3 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 303.

  12.     Lewis Perry, Radical Abolitionism: Anarchy and the Government of God in Antislavery Thought (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1995), 167.

  13.     James Oakes, Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery (New York: Norton, 2012), 14.

  14.     Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005), 109.

  15.     Randy E. Barnett, “From Antislavery Lawyer to Chief Justice: The Forgotten Career of Salmon P. Chase,” Case Western Reserve Law Review 63 (2013): 653–702; Frederick J. Blue, Salmon Chase: A Life in Politics (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1987), 31–32.

  16.     U.S. Const. art. IV, §2.

  17.     See Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery.

  18.     Speech of Salmon P. Chase, in the Case of the Colored Woman, Matilda (Cincinnati: Pugh & Dodd, 1837), https://archive.org/details/speechofsalmonpc00chas (accessed September 11, 2014).

  19.     Richard H. Sewell, Ballots for Freedom: Antislavery Politics in the United States, 1837–1860 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), viii.

  20.     Salmon P. Chase, An Argument for the Defendant, Submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States, at the December Term, 1846: In the Case of Wharton Jones v. Vanzandt (1847), 89. (In the title of this pamphlet, the defendant’s name is spelled “Vanzandt,” unlike the Supreme Court reporter, which spells it “Van Zandt.”)

  21.     Ibid.

  22.     Ibid., 93–94.

  23.     Ibid., 94.

  24.     See In re Booth, 3 Wis. 1 (1854) (decision by Justice Smith); 3 Wis. 54 (1854) (decision by full court).

  25.     Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859).

  26.     Sewell, Ballots for Freedom, 300.

  27.     Willard Carl Klunder, Lewis Cass and the Politics of Moderation (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1996), 267–68.

  28.     James Huston, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858, ed. Robert W. Johannsen (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 48.

  29.     Speech of the Hon. S. P. Chase, of Ohio, in the Senate, Feb. 3, 1854, “Maintained Plighted Faith,” Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Sess., 133–40.

  30.     Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), 87.

  31.     Oakes, Freedom National, 144.

  32.     Ibid., 386.

  33.     Ibid., 360.

  34.     60 U.S. 393 (1856).

  35.     United States Department of State, “Opinion of Mr. Attorney-General Bates, Dated November 29, 1862,” in Foreign Relations of the United States, Part 2 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1873), 1370.

  36.     Ibid., 1371.

  37.     Ibid., 1372.

  38.     Ibid., 1370.

  39.     Ibid.

  40.     U.S. Const. amend. XIII, §2.

  41.     Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866).

  42.     President Andrew Johnson, Veto of the Civil Rights Bill, March 27, 1866, http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/107/109768/ch16_a2_d1.pdf (accessed September 11, 2014).

  43.     Ibid.

  44.     Ibid.

  45.     Ibid.

  46.     Garrett Epps, Democracy Reborn: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Fight for Equal Rights in Post–Civil War America (New York: Henry Holt, 2006).

  47.     Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546, 551–552 (1823) (emphasis added).

  48.     Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2765.

  49.     Ibid., 1265–66.

  50.     Ibid., 2765.

  51.     Although he accepts the importance of Howard’s explanation of “privileges or immunities,” Kurt Lash has claimed that because Article IV rights described in Corfield only protected out-of-state citizens from discrimination when residing in another state, the rights that Senator Howard quoted from Justice Washington’s opinion in Corfield were only to receive equal protection from discriminatory state laws. See Kurt T. Lash, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 155–60. But Howard makes no such distinction in his speech. Instead, he combines both sets of rights together as an undifferentiated “mass of privileges, immunities, and rights” that are derived from the first eight amendments and from Article IV. Nor does Lash produce anyone who contemporaneously articulated his theory that the Privileges or Immunities Clause referred to two differentially enforceable classes of rights. For other problems with Lash’s account, see Christopher R. Green, “Incorporation, Total Incorporation, and Nothing but Incorporation?,” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 24 (2015). This is not the place to debate this highly complex issue of original meaning. However, even if Lash was correct that the protection of these civil rights is limited to nondiscrimination, my proposal in Chapter 9 that the “due process of law” requires judges to fairly adjudicate a citizen’s challenge to irrational or arbitrary restrictions of liberty would still be warranted.

  52.     U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §2.

  53.     Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 1st Sess. (1847, Appendix: 45), Speech of Thomas Clingman on December 22, 1847.

CHAPTER 5: LOSING OUR REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTION

    1.     The details of the massacre and the subsequent prosecution are taken from the excellent book by Charles Lane, The Day That Freedom Died: The Colfax Massacre, the Supreme Court, and the Betrayal of Reconstruction (New York: Henry Holt, 2009).

    2.     Stephen P. Halbrook, Freedom, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866–1876 (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1998), 160.

    3.     Lane, The Day That Freedom Died, 137.

    4.     United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 548 (1875).

    5.     Lane, The Day That Freedom Died, 204.

    6.     83 U.S. 36 (1873).

    7.     83 U.S. 130 (1872).

    8.     Id. at 139 (Miller, J.).

    9.     Cruikshank, 92 U.S. at 554.

  10.     Francisco M. Ugarte, “Reconstruction Redux: Rehnquist, Morrison, and the Civil Rights Cases,” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 40 (2006): 507.

  11.     The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 35 (Harlan, J., dissenting).

  12.     See C. Vann Woodward, Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction (Boston: Little, Brown, 1951), 8; Allan Peskin, “Was There a Compromise of 1877?,” Journal of American History 60 (1973): 63–75; C. Vann Woodward, “Yes, There Was a Compromise of 1877,” Journal of American History 60 (1973): 215–23 (1973). One argument against the existence of a secret deal is the claim that Hayes had already promised during the campaign to withdraw the remaining federal troops and other aspects of the alleged compromise were never carried out.

  13.     Pamela Brandwein, Rethinking the Judicial Settlement of Reconstruction (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 9.

  14.     Ibid., 184–205. See also ibid., 18. (“Scholars have gotten right the idea that the definitive abandonment of blacks followed and consolidated the Republican Party’s definitive political abandonment of them. But scholars have gotten wrong the timing and vehicles of definitive abandonment.”) With this talk of Republican “abandonment,” it perhaps bears noting that, only because the Democrats were unremitting in their efforts to subordinate blacks, Democrats cannot be said to have abandoned them.

  15.     Ibid., 9.

  16.     Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 540–41 (1896).

  17.     Id. at 550–51.

  18.     Id.

  19.     Id. at 543.

  20.     Id. at 550–51.

  21.     Jennifer Roback, “The Political Economy of Segregation: The Case of Segregated Streetcars,” Journal of Economic History 56, no. 4 (December 1986).

  22.     Plessy, 163 U.S. at 555.

  23.     Id. at 557.

  24.     Id.

  25.     Id.

  26.     The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed., s.v. “progressive era.”

  27.     Ronald Hamowy, “Preventive Medicine and the Criminalization of Sexual Immorality in Nineteenth Century America,” in Assessing the Criminal: Restitution, Retribution, and the Legal Process, eds. Randy E. Barnett and John Hagel III (Pensacola, FL: Ballinger, 1977), 33–95.

  28.     See, e.g., Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).

  29.     James B. Thayer, “The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law,” Harvard Law Review 7 (1893): 129.

  30.     Ibid. (emphasis added).

  31.     Ibid.

  32.     Ibid., 130 (emphasis added).

  33.     Ibid., 131–32.

  34.     Ibid., 132.

  35.     Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution, 139.

  36.     Thayer, “The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine,” 136.

  37.     Ibid.

  38.     Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution, 136.

  39.     Thayer, “The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine,” 144 (emphasis added).

  40.     Ibid.

  41.     Ibid.

  42.     Ibid (emphasis added).

  43.     Plessy, 163 U.S. at 550–51 (emphasis added).

  44.     Thayer, “The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine,” 156.

  45.     NFIB, 132 S. Ct., at 2579.

  46.     Lochner, 198 U.S. at 76 (1905) (emphasis added).

  47.     Id.

  48.     Thomas Healy, The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind—and Changed the History of Free Speech in America (New York: Henry Holt, 2013), 61.

  49.     Ibid., 60.

  50.     Ibid., 61–62.

  51.     Letter of Franklin D. Roosevelt to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., February 23, 1935, in Brad Snyder, The House of Truth (manuscript).

  52.     Theodore Roosevelt, “The Right of the People to Rule, March 20, 1912,” in New Outlook, ed. Alfred Emanuel Smith and Francis Walton (New York: Outlook, 1912), 618.

  53.     Ibid., 619.

  54.     Michael A. Cohen, “Theodore Roosevelt Defines His New Nationalism Platform, Osawatomie, Kansas, August 31, 1910,” in Live from the Campaign Trail: The Greatest Campaign Speeches of the Twentieth Century and How They Shaped Modern America (New York: Bloomsbury, 2011), 49.

  55.     Roosevelt, “The Right of the People to Rule,” 618.

  56.     Ibid.

  57.     Ibid.

  58.     Ibid., 619.

  59.     Ibid., 620.

  60.     Ibid., 622.

  61.     Ibid.

  62.     Ibid., 624.

  63.     Ibid., 623.

  64.     “Roosevelt Hits at Taft Again,” New York Times, March 21, 1912, http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9801E3D9143CE633A25752C2A9659C946396D6CF.

  65.     Theodore Roosevelt, “Address by Theodore Roosevelt before the National Convention of the Progressive Party in Chicago, August 6th, 1912,” in Theodore Roosevelt’s Confession of Faith before the Progressive National Convention (New York: Allied Printing, 1912).

  66.     Ibid., 5–6.

  67.     Ibid., 8.

  68.     W. W. Spooner et al., National Political Parties with Their Platforms (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1922), 406.

  69.     Donald G. Lett, Phoenix Rising: The Rise and Fall of the American Republic (Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2008), 81

  70.     Christopher Caldwell, “Schoolmaster to the World,” Claremont Review of Books 14, no. 1 (Winter 2013–14), http://www.claremont.org/article/schoolmaster-to-the-world/#.VRGVevnF_R0.

  71.     Ibid.

  72.     Woodrow Wilson, “From Wilson’s Shorthand Diary,” in The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, 69 vols., ed. Arthur S. Link (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1966–93), 5:65–68.

  73.     Ibid.

  74.     A. Scott Berg, Wilson (New York: Penguin Group, 2013), 71.

  75.     Ibid., 110.

  76.     “Conversation, January, 1915, Mr. Trotter and Mr. Wilson,” in New Crisis 107, no. 4 (July–August 2000): 60.

  77.     William M. Tuttle Jr., Race Riot: Chicago in the Red Summer of 1919 (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1996), 230.

  78.     William Keylor, “The Long-Forgotten Racial Attitudes and Policies of Woodrow Wilson,” Professor Voices, March 4, 2013, http://www.bu.edu/professorvoices/2013/03/04/the-long-forgotten-racial-attitudes-and-policies-of-woodrow-wilson/.

  79.     “The Crisis,” January 1915, 119–20, reprinted in William Loren Katz, Eyewitness: The Negro in American History (New York: Pitman, 1967), 389–90.

  80.     Letter of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. to Lewis Einstein, August 14, 1927, in Snyder, The House of Truth, 65.

  81.     Bailey v. State of Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 230 (1911).

  82.     Id. at 244.

  83.     Id. at 247 (Holmes, J., dissenting).

  84.     Id. at 248.

  85.     Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917).

  86.     Christopher Alan Bracey, Saviors or Sellouts: The Promise and Peril of Black Conservatism, from Booker T. Washington to Condoleezza Rice (Boston: Beacon Press, 2008), 36.

  87.     Ibid.

  88.     Harris v. City of Louisville, 177 S.W. 472, 476 (Ky. 1915).

  89.     David E. Bernstein and Ilya Somin, “Judicial Power and Civil Rights Reconsidered,” Yale Law Journal 114 (2004): 591.

  90.     Buchanan, 245 U.S., 73–74.

  91.     Id. at 78.

  92.     Id.

  93.     Id. at 79.

  94.     Id.

  95.     Id. at 81.

  96.     Bernstein and Somin, “Judicial Power and Civil Rights Reconsidered,” 629.

  97.     Ibid.

  98.     Ibid.

  99.     Ibid.

100.     Ibid., 629–30.

101.     Holmes Draft Dissent, in Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Papers, Harvard Law School, Series XX, Box 80, Folder 12.

102.     Ibid.

103.     Ibid.

104.     Ibid.

105.     Ibid.

106.     Ibid.

107.     Berg, Wilson, 240.

108.     Ibid., 400.

109.     208 U.S. 412 (1908).

110.     Brief for the State of Oregon, Curt Muller, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Oregon, Defendant in Error, WL 27605 *18 (U.S. January 31, 1908).

111.     Ibid., 22.

112.     83 U.S. 130, 139–42 (1872) (Bradley, J., concurring).

113.     Id. at 139 (Miller, J.).

114.     Id. at 141 (Bradley, J., concurring).

115.     Id.

116.     Id. at 142 (emphasis added). See Richard L. Aynes, “Bradwell v. Illinois: Chief Justice Chase’s Dissent and the ‘Sphere of Women’s Work,’” Louisiana Law Review 59 (1999): 520. Available at http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol59/iss2/7.

117.     Muller, 208 U.S., at 421.

118.     261 U.S. 525 (1923).

119.     Id. at 567 (Holmes, J., dissenting).

120.     Id. at 568.

121.     David M. Kennedy, “The Dilemma of Difference in Democratic Society,” Tanner Lectures on Human Values (May 13, 2003): 642.

122.     Letter from Susan B. Anthony to Myra Bradwell (April 28, 1873), in Jane M. Friedman, “Myra Bradwell: On Defying the Creator and Becoming a Lawyer,” Valparaiso Law Review 28 (1994): 1287, 1300.

123.     See ibid., 1301.

124.     282 U.S. 251 (1931).

125.     Id. at 257–58.

126.     Id. at 258.

127.     Walton H. Hamilton, “The Jurist’s Art,” Columbia Law Review 31 (1931): 1073, 1074–75.

128.     Walter White, A Man Called White: The Autobiography of Walter White (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1995), 106.

129.     Letter of Felix Frankfurter to Henry Stimson, February 9, 1932, in Snyder, House of Truth.

130.     Snyder, House of Truth.

131.     Letter from Willis Van Devanter to Mrs. John W. Lacey, February 29, 1932, in ibid, 4.

132.     Letter from Willis Van Devanter to Frank B. Kellogg, March 10, 1932, in ibid., 2.

133.     Letter of Felix Frankfurter to Herbert Hoover, February 16, 1932, in ibid., 2.

134.     Joan Hoff-Wilson, Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive (Boston: Little, Brown, 1975).

135.     New York World, July 21, 1920, 10, in Snyder, House of Truth, 118.

136.     Ibid.

137.     Leonard Baker, “History of the Court: Depression and Rise of Legal Realism,” in The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, ed. Kermit Hall, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 450, 452.

138.     304 U.S. 144 (1938).

139.     Id. at 152 (emphasis added).

140.     Id. at 153 (emphasis added).

141.     Id. at 153–54 (emphasis added).

142.     348 U.S. 483 (1955).

143.     See Geoffrey P. Miller, “The True Story of Carolene Products,” Supreme Court Review 1987 (1987): 397.

144.     Ibid., 419.

145.     Ibid., 404.

146.     United States v. Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152 n.4 (1938).

147.     Id.

148.     John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980).

149.     Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., “The Supreme Court: 1947,” Fortune, January 1947, 73.

150.     Ibid.

151.     Ibid., 74.

152.     Ibid., 73.

153.     Ibid., 76.

154.     Ibid., 77.

155.     Ibid., 78.

156.     Ibid., 201.

157.     Ibid., 75–76.

158.     Ibid., 202.

159.     Ibid.

160.     Ibid., 204.

161.     Ibid., 202.

162.     Ibid., 210.

163.     Ibid., 206.

164.     Ibid., 208.

165.     Ibid.

166.     Michael W. McConnell, “The Originalist Case for Brown v. Board of Education,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 19 (1995–96): 457.

167.     Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch, 16.

168.     Ibid.

169.     Madison, “Federalist #10,” 78.

CHAPTER 6: WHY FEDERALISM MATTERS

    1.     U.S. Const. amend. IX (emphasis added).

    2.     U.S. Const. amend. X (emphasis added).

    3.     “Letter from James Madison to George Washington, December 5, 1789,” in Documentary History of the Constitution of the United States of America, 1786–1870, vol. 5 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State, 1905), 221–22 (emphasis added).

    4.     Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct It) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) (harshly criticizing the Senate and other undemocratic elements of the Constitution, without denying these elements exist).

    5.     22 U.S. 1, 203 (1824).

    6.     Id.

    7.     Id.

    8.     Id. at 203–4 (emphases added).

    9.     285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

  10.     Id.

  11.     Id. at 271.

  12.     Id. at 273.

  13.     Id. at 278.

  14.     Id. (internal citations omitted).

  15.     Id. at 279.

  16.     Id. at 280.

  17.     Id. at 280.

  18.     F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).

  19.     Ilya Somin, Democracy and Political Ignorance (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2013), 119–54.

  20.     Clint Bolick, Grassroots Tyranny: The Limits of Federalism (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 1993).

  21.     Michael S. Greve, The Upside-Down Constitution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012).

  22.     U.S. Const. art. 1, §8 (emphasis added).

  23.     See Randy E. Barnett and David G. Oedel, “ObamaCare and the General Welfare Clause,” Wall Street Journal, December 27, 2010, A17.

CHAPTER 7: PROTECTING RIGHTS BY LIMITING FEDERAL POWER

    1.     Declaration of Diane Monson in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (October 29, 2002): 4.

    2.     Declaration of Angel Raich in Support of Preliminary Injunction (October 25, 2002): 1.

    3.     For an explanation of how and why this challenge failed, see Randy E. Barnett, “Scrutiny Land,” Michigan Law Review 106 (2008): 1479.

    4.     U.S. Const. art. 1, §1 (emphasis added).

    5.     U.S. Const. amend. X.

    6.     The Papers of James Madison, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s50.html.

    7.     Ibid.

    8.     Ibid.

    9.     James Madison, “Speech in Congress Proposing Constitutional Amendments,” June 8, 1789, in James Madison, Writings, ed. Jack N. Rakove (New York: Library of America, 1999), 437, 447.

  10.     Collins Denny Jr., “The Growth and Development of the Police Power of the State,” Michigan Law Review 20 (1921): 173.

  11.     The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 2 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1911), 21 (July 17, 1787; from resolution proposed to the convention).

  12.     Alexander Hamilton, “Federalist #17,” in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: New American Library, 1961), 118 (“The resolution of the mere domestic police of a State appears to me to hold out slender allurements to ambition”); Hamilton, “The Federalist #34,” The Federalist, 309 (referring to “expenses arising from those institutions which are relative to the mere domestic police of a state”).

  13.     41 U.S. 539 (1842).

  14.     U.S. Const. art. IV, §2.

  15.     U.S. Const. art. IV, §1.

  16.     U.S. Const. art. 1, §8.

  17.     Prigg, 41 U.S. at 619 (emphasis added).

  18.     That this expansion relied mainly on the Necessary and Proper Clause is explained in Randy E. Barnett, “Commandeering the People: Why the Individual Health Insurance Mandate Is Unconstitutional,” New York University Journal of Law and Liberty 5 (2010): 589–95.

  19.     488 U.S. 1041 (1992).

  20.     501 U.S. 452 (1991).

  21.     521 U.S. 898 (1997).

  22.     517 U.S. 44 (1996).

  23.     527 U.S. 706 (1999).

  24.     514 U.S. 549 (1995).

  25.     529 U.S. 598 (2000).

  26.     U.S. Const. amend. II.

  27.     529 U.S. at 613.

CHAPTER 8: A GOVERNMENT OF MEN AND NOT OF LAWS

    1.     Transcript, “Univision Interview with President Obama after State of the Union Address,” January 26, 2012, http://latinalista.com/media-2/transcripts/transcript-univision-interview-with-president-obama-after-state-of-the-union-address.

    2.     U.S. Const. art. II, §3.

    3.     Locke, Two Treatises of Government, §123, 395.

    4.     Ibid.

    5.     Ibid.

    6.     Ibid., §124, 396.

    7.     Ibid., §125, 396.

    8.     Ibid.

    9.     Ibid., §126, 396.

  10.     Ibid., §126, 397.

  11.     Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, vol. 1, trans. Thomas Nugent (London: J. Nourse, 1777), 138.

  12.     Ibid.

  13.     Ibid.

  14.     Mass. Const. art. XXX (1780) (emphasis added).

  15.     J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409 (1928).

  16.     Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, 575 U.S. ____ (2015) (Thomas, J., concurring), slip opinion at 19.

  17.     Id. slip opinion at 27.

  18.     Id. slip opinion at 12.

  19.     See Gary Lawson, “The Rise and Rise of the Administrative State,” Harvard Law Review 107 (1994): 1231–54.

  20.     Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 575 U. S. ____ (2015) (Thomas, J., concurring), slip opinion at 8.

  21.     Id. slip opinion at 5.

  22.     Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

  23.     Perez, 575 U.S. ____ (Thomas, J., concurring), slip opinion at 13.

  24.     Id.

  25.     Id. slip opinion at 11.

  26.     Id. slip opinion at 13.

  27.     Id. slip opinion at 11.

  28.     Id. slip opinion at 23.

  29.     See Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Imperial Presidency (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1973).

CHAPTER 9: “IRRATIONAL AND ARBITRARY” LAWS

    1.     Obituary of Theodore Shanbaum, Dallas Morning News, October 6, 1999.

    2.     Ibid.

    3.     Ibid.

    4.     Ibid.

    5.     F. H. Buckley, The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America (New York: Encounter Books, 2014).

    6.     Locke, Two Treatises of Government, §124, 396.

    7.     See Philip Hamburger, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014).

    8.     Madison, “Federalist #10.”

    9.     Ibid.

  10.     The Papers of James Madison, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s50.html.

  11.     Schlesinger, “The Supreme Court: 1947,” 202.

  12.     Ibid.

  13.     3 U.S. at 388 (Chase, J.) (emphases in original).

  14.     Id. (emphases in original).

  15.     Calder, 3 U.S. at 388.

  16.     22 U.S. 1, 203 (1824).

  17.     Id.

  18.     Declaration of Independence para. 2 (U.S. 1776).

  19.     Clark M. Neily III, Terms of Engagement: How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution’s Promise of Limited Government (New York: Encounter Books, 2013).

  20.     Ibid., 1–2, 59–60.

  21.     Ibid., 20.

  22.     Ibid., 159–60.

  23.     Ibid., 57–58.

  24.     For more on why “the due process of law” requires general laws that are not irrational or arbitrary, see Sandefur, The Conscience of the Constitution, 71–155.

  25.     304 U.S. at 152.

  26.     Milnot Company v. Richardson, 350 F. Supp. 221, 224 (N.D. Ill. 1972).

  27.     Id.

  28.     Id.

  29.     Lee Optical, 120 F. Supp. 128, 135 (W.D. Okla. 1954).

  30.     Id. at 132.

  31.     Id. at 134.

  32.     Id.

  33.     Id. at 135.

  34.     Id.

  35.     Id.

  36.     Id. at 136.

  37.     Id.

  38.     Id.

  39.     Id. at 137.

  40.     Id.

  41.     Id.

  42.     Id.

  43.     Id. at 137–38.

  44.     Id. at 137 n. 20.

  45.     Id.

  46.     Id. at 138.

  47.     Id. at 139.

  48.     Id. at 137.

  49.     Carolene Products, 304 U.S. at 152.

  50.     Id. (emphasis added).

  51.     Id. at 487.

  52.     Id.

  53.     Id.

  54.     Id.

  55.     Id. at 488 (emphasis added).

  56.     Id. at 489 (emphasis added).

  57.     Id. (emphasis added).

  58.     Id.

  59.     See Barnett, “Scrutiny Land.”

CONCLUSION : REDEEMING OUR REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTION

    1.     Mark A. Levin, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (New York: Threshold Editions, 2013), 1.

    2.     Calvin Coolidge, Address at the Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 5, 1926, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=408.

    3.     See Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution, 412–19. For another set of thoughtful proposals aimed at the same restorative end, see Levin, The Liberty Amendments.

    4.     The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 2 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1937), 629 (statement by George Mason, September 15, 1787) (emphasis added).

    5.     See Robert G. Natelson, “Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution’s ‘Convention for Proposing Amendments,’” Florida Law Review 65 (2013): 615. See also Robert G. Natelson, “The Article V Convention Process and the Restoration of Federalism,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 36 (2013): 955.

    6.     See Michael B. Rappaport, “The Constitutionality of a Limited Convention: An Originalist Analysis,” Constitutional Commentary 81 (2012): 53. See also Michael Stern, “Reopening the Constitutional Road to Reform: Toward a Safeguarded Article V Convention,” Tennessee Law Review 78 (2011): 765.

    7.     Levin, The Liberty Amendments, 15.

    8.     Ibid., 1.

    9.     Ibid., 18.