It was important to create a buffer between the easily arroused passion of the People and the Responsibilities of the Judicial Branch.
The same thought process went into creating a Congress, and why each house derived it’s members from distinct sources. (It was a Check to prevent the legislative branch from the sudden and often short-lived passions.) Also why the President isn’t elected the same way… If they were, then they would be more likely to join forces to promote their own interests, and its easier to fool the body of the people, then it is if you have to convince the state legislators as well.

Ultimately, If you want to know how to interpret the Constitution, just ask yourself, what part of the PreAmble my interpretation intended to accomplish. If it doesn’t fit, it isn’t right.

You can’t be told what the Constitution means, you have to realize what it means.

Great posts, very informative.

This relates to the second debate, the one concerning popular constitutionalism, which seems all the rage these days.

Unfortunately, originalism is all the rage now, too. Originalists are far more concerned about the opinions of the Founders and the American public of two centuries ago than about the opinions of the people that the Constitution is supposed to serve today.

IMO one of the jobs of the courts is to persuade the public that a decision is a correct one even if it is an unpopular one. I think a good example is Romer v. Evans, where the courts overturned a Colorado proposition that banned laws and regulations that were aimed at protecting homosexuals from discrimination. There was a lot of complaining about the courts overturning the “will of the people,” but I think that the US Supreme Court majority argued persuasively that people should not be barred from seeking aid from the government.

Oh, and special shoutout to your collaborator, Steve Ansolabehere. I knew Steve casually (through Scouting) long, long ago (30+ years), in a galaxy far, far away (northern Nevada to be exact) when we were both much younger. I have to say I am impressed with his (and your) work since then.

I get this a lot. The short answer is I find the study of public attitudes on constitutional questions to be interesting, regardless of its relevance or instrumental benefits.

I was one who raised the meta-question, thanks for not taking offense.

The first concerns the countermajoritarian difficulty and the justifications offered for judicial intervention to overturn policy supported by the political branches or the mass public.

This relates to the second debate, the one concerning popular constitutionalism, which seems all the rage these days.

I don’t doubt that they do factor in public opinion and all that, but, the concept of popular constitutionalism seems like code for “don’t let that damn conservative court ruin our legislation.” If we have no judicial review, or a severely curtailed one because we want the court to follow the public opinion of the day(moreso than it already is – based on public opinion), do we not cease to have a Constitution or constitutional limitations? All legislation is inherently valid. The people willed it! Democratic republic!

Thanks.