Nine stars
Always eager to read about constitutional subjects, I turned to this recent book by Madiba Dennie. Her central hypothesis remains that constitutional originalism is out of sync with current views in the United States, even if the US Supreme Court uses it to create ultra-conservatism legal interpretations within the country. Dennie creates a well-documented piece that explores the US Constitutuon, the Originalism takeover, and how to wrest control back for the people.
While there is no single approach to constitutional interpretation, some would believe that the only way to do so is by adopting a mindset of those who wrote it. This is the Originalism ideology, where people consider constitutional power and freedoms based on how the Founding Fathers (or those who penned future amendments to the document) thought when the ink was still wet on the page. This might seem silly in the United States, but it is the current mindset of the conservative majority on the US Supreme Court, alongside other judges and even some lethal thinkers. While the ideology emerged in the 1980s to push back against too many freedoms sought by the populace, it hid in the weeds for decades. New appointments by a man whose validity for president remains a mystery helped to bring it into the spotlight and has begun dismantling decades of legal precedent under the view that it was poorly adjudicated and not how the original thinkers meant it to be decided. How this makes sense eludes me, as I have always thought the Living Tree interpretation made the most sense to constitutional interpretation, but I am simply a Canadian watching a Dumpster fire from acros the 45th Parallel.
Madiba Dennie explores this Originalism approach over time to analyse significant decisions by America’s highest court and how applying these arcane perspectives dismantle the support of group and individual rights that have long made sense and are clearly documented in the US Constitution. From women’s right to choose, to racist treatment, through to the right to cast a vote and how people’s personal choices should be dictated by clueless politicians and judges. Dennie sifts through cases and rulings throughout this tome and makes cogent arguments about why this ideology has become an outlandish view, now left to linger over the country.
Dennie speaks of how Originalism is less an applicable form of constitutional interpretation and should be left for academic to argue in law journals or at conferences. Rather, she favours the idea of inclusive constitutionalism, in which groups and their views are taken into account and the current temperature of the country is considered. It would make sense that, with the understanding of freedoms laid out in the Constitution, that the vast majority of the population could express a view the courts would take up, rather than impose one from the 18th century to determine how 21st century America is meant to run.
While the walls seem to be crashing down with Originalism pushing things back centuries, Dennie feels that there is hope. She posits that the country does not need to sit idly by and allow the conservative movement spoon out constitutional medicine that must be taken, puckered lips aplenty. Rather, a movement to formally refuse to follow these rules and support an alternate interpretation of consitutional rules may follow. She cites examples of when the ‘Court got it wrong’ and the general pubic spoke out about this, until another case of similar legal merit came along for the Court to correct their misinterpretation. It seems anarchical, but it is actually a form of democracy, for the people to use their voice and make change. I cannot see this happening while ICE is out there clubbing people and the president is clueless to what is best for those he oversees. However, time will tell if the movement gains momentum.
A book of this nature is sure to ruffle some feathers and cause others to get quite excited. Madiba Dennie delivers her points in a clear and scholarly manner, without drowning things in academic jargon. She makes sure to clearly explore each of her topics in a way that can be understood and applies hands-on examples from Court cases to show what she means. Her views are her own, but easily adopted by others. Clear chapters make it simple to follow and things advance effectively in a way that the reader can digest. While she does have a goal here, she does so respectfully and ensures that both sides are heard, even if one is completely contradictory to her point of view. While she does not accept Originalism as being an ideology that ought to be applied to constitutional decisions, she supports its use in academic circles for fruitful debate. I would do the same and feel enlightened to have read and understood all that was brought up in this book. I could not agree more from my Canadian perch, though the Dumpster fire is sure to keep me warm on long, winter nights.
Kudos, Madam Dennie, for an insightful book that pushes the limits and keeps the reader thinking.
Book Reviews to Ponder 