Sandhya Bathija argues that the Constitution can and does evolve - democratically, and toward liberty.
A plea for the most famous footnote in American jurisprudence.
David R. Upham provides a coherent - and troubling - explanation of progressive jurisprudence.
Timothy Sandefur notes that modern progressivism has occasionally strayed from its puritanical, controlling roots. Thankfully.
Timothy Sandefur argues that judicial restraint enables the growth of government at the expense of individual liberties.
Kermit Roosevelt III discusses judicial activism and restraint. He finds neither is always appropriate.
Sandhya Bathija argues that restrained courts have done best to protect rights from the interests of the wealthy and powerful.
David R. Upham argues the Founders intended a significant democratic element to our Constitution; fidelity to it requires some judicial restraint.
Timothy Sandefur replies to Kermit Roosevelt III on judicial deference and the roles of the elected branches in protecting the Constitution.
Kermit Roosevelt III responds to Sandefur's charge that modern courts are too deferent to the legislature.