I very much appreciate Tim Sandefur’s careful response to my question about his view of the Constitution. If I understand Tim’s view, though, it’s actually not about the U.S. Constitution in particular. Instead, it’s a theory of all governments throughout human history. In these posts, he happens to be advocating his approach for the U.S. Constitution today. But if I understand him correctly, he would be advocating the same classical liberal interpretation if he were interpreting the constitution of the People’s Republic of China, the constitution of Vichy France in World War II, or tribal councils set up by hunter-gatherers in the prehistoric era. Granted, Tim argues that there are aspects of the U.S. Constitution that (in his view) explicitly adopt his classical liberal approach, so part of the argument is specific to the U.S. Constitution. But I gather that the underlying classical liberal theory of how constitutions should be interpreted is actually about all governments in all times in all countries, not just the U.S. Constitution today. Or at least that’s my understanding: I hope Tim (or commenters) will correct me if I’m wrong.